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.

[Cathar1950]

We discount the supernatural because what you call supernatural claims I see as simply being unsupported scientific claims.

No...you're right. You with the unbelieving mind would not be able to see what we can see with the eyes of faith. While you place so much faith into only things that can be explained by science...we see enough evidence and accept there are events which are above the laws of nature. We with the eyes of faith in God do see the effects in abundance far exceeds the power of natural forces, which takes place instantaneously without the means or processes which nature employs in our life. Do you think God would leave us orphan...to be always wondering about those miracles of the two thousand years long ago and not having anything today to confirm and strengthen our belief? No, He's involve in our everyday lives...and knows even the hair that fall from our head. He makes His presnece known...in our reasoning... in our seeing the odds against evil things crushing on us on all sides in this life are always turning out favorably...in our witnessing the power of praying, the healing power of love on the broken hearts...in our seeing Higher Strength helps break the chains of addictions...we know God is with us.

We can only smile and be sympathetic and pity our unbelieving brothers and sisters to have to go through life accepting and seeing only things limited to what science can explain. Wouldn't we know it, the Lawgiver of those laws of nature Himself change the rules as He wish...but there are those still too much into the letters of the laws to not see the Lawgiver Himself.

I am not sure faith sees as much as it believes.
There are godless humans that break the chains of addictions all the time. Some even go to psychologists. Many of us have pity and sympathy for those that see God in everything and miss reality. But this does not provide evidence for the Rez.
I will get back to Goose later.

[Zzyzx]

.

We can only smile and be sympathetic and pity our unbelieving brothers and sisters to have to go through life accepting and seeing only things limited to what science can explain. Wouldn't we know it, the Lawgiver of those laws of nature Himself change the rules as He wish...but there are those still too much into the letters of the laws to not see the Lawgiver Himself.

Emphasis added: That statement is pure religious elitism and a false claim of superiority for believers over non-believers. THAT attitude makes enemies from those who were neutral. Is it your objective to make enemies by a condescending and elitist attitude?

It is also blatant hypocrisy for those who claim to “follow Christ” to act with very un-Christlike elitism.

Is it impossible for many religionists to comprehend that they are NOT superior by virtue of their beliefs? Is indoctrination so thorough that elitism is unavoidable?

We discount the supernatural because what you call supernatural claims I see as simply being unsupported scientific claims.

No...you're right. You with the unbelieving mind would not be able to see what we can see with the eyes of faith.

Or, “we with the ‘eyes of faith’ are willing to believe whatever we are told by our chosen clerics”.

While you place so much faith into only things that can be explained by science...we see enough evidence and accept there are events which are above the laws of nature.

We who “place so much faith into only things that can be explained by science” also often use what is known as “common sense” to decide whether a tall tale being told squares with the real world. “Miracle” tales don’t pass the test of common sense OR science – only “faith” and “believe on faith alone”.

We with the eyes of faith in God do see the effects in abundance far exceeds the power of natural forces, which takes place instantaneously without the means or processes which nature employs in our life.

Can instances of “effects in abundance far exceeds the power of natural forces” be cited, or are they invisible or imaginary or without known effect?

Do you think God would leave us orphan...to be always wondering about those miracles of the two thousand years long ago and not having anything today to confirm and strengthen our belief?

We “of little faith” make our own way in the world and our own decisions. We do not feel a need for an invisible “father figure” to “lead us”.

No, He's involve in our everyday lives...and knows even the hair that fall from our head. He makes His presnece known...in our reasoning... in our seeing the odds against evil things crushing on us on all sides in this life are always turning out favorably...

“Always turning out favorably”? Do invisible super beings insure that things always turn out favorably for those who worship them? Do they also make good things happen for those who do not worship them?

[Goose]

Paul, being a Pharisee likely believed in the physical resurrection of the dead, yes or no?

Pauls calls his former Pharisaiacla beliefs 'garbage' in Galatians'

Steven thinks the word "garbage" is in the bible. I'd like to see where Paul calls his former Pharisaiacla beliefs "garbage" in Galatians.

Paul never says that what is buried is what is risen, and he stresses to those dumb Jesus-worshippers that what is raised is made of a heavenly material, and trashes the idea that resurrected bodies are made of the dust of the earth that corpses dissolve into.

So where is your evidence that Jesus rose from the grave?

Steven has already forgotten about the OP. Steven thinks the only evidence we have is Paul.

--------------------------------------

Goose's logic would only prove Islam was true, if there were Islamic stories of somebody close to Muhammad who was initially sceptical, and then converted to Islam, and was prepared to risk his life for his new beliefs.

Hey , guess what? There are such stories.

I suppose Islam must be true after all

Steven must live on a farm because he likes to build straw men. Someone close that was sceptical and converted is a piece of evidence. Not all the evidence.

--------------------------------------

Some religious lunatics , some of whom claimed to have gone to Heaven, started a religion.

Yes, but why?

Who can say?

Steven doesn't know. But somehow he knows for sure that Jesus didn't rise from the dead.

But let us account for ALL the data.

Why did people convert to Jesus-worship in Corinth and still scoff at the idea that God would choose to raise a corpse?

Why was the church in Thessalonia worried about their fellow Christians who had become corpses?

Steven thinks that if converts doubted or were confused about the nature of the resurrected body then the Rez is false.

People in one church simply scoff at the idea of a corpse rising, while another church is really worried about the fate of corpses.

Steven thinks if people scoff and are worried about corpses then Jesus didn't physically rise from the dead.

Even a Christian book like Acts says early Christians like Stephen had visions of a resurrected Jesus that nobody around them could see.

Steven thinks this means all experiences with Jesus were visions.

And neither Peter nor James wrote one about seeing a resurrected body.

Steven thinks arguments from silence are compelling. He also needs to read the book of Acts again.

And no non-Christian source even registers a belief by Christians in corpses rising for many decades.

Steven thinks non-Christians were really, really interested in the beliefs of Christians and should have written lots and lots of stuff about them.

Evidence?

As big, fat zeros go, that is the biggest fattest zero of evidence I have ever seen.

Steven thinks all the evidence in the OP adds up to zero.

--------------------------------------

GOOSE
If the writer of Acts is just making it up and reports only a spiritual encounter for Paul this shows de-evolution not evolution in the story.

CARR
In other words, Acts never reports Paul seeing a corpse of Jesus that had risen from the grave.

Steven has acknowledged the story is de-evolving. The embellishment theory is in trouble.


--------------------------------------

Why did people convert to Jesus-worship and scoff at the idea of God choosing to raise a corpse?

I could care less. The important thing is what did those who knew Christ believe. Later converts weren't in a position to know the truth.

Goose simply could not care less about the truth.

Early Christian converts were clearly not converted by tales of corpses rising from the grave.

Goose's attitude - 'Who cares?'

Steven still thinks no one was convinced that Jesus came back to life. Steven also still believes converts were in a position to know the truth.

--------------------------------------

Sure he does "...was buried, he was raised..." The Greek word used for buried is thapto - "A primary verb; to celebrate funeral rites, that is, inter: - bury." (Strong's). Jewish burial customs were to place the body in a tomb of sorts(see John 11:38 for an example and here for more). I said this in an earlier post. If I were to say I went to bed last night and rose up this morning. It's implied my bed is now empty. That's a no-brainer.

And also no miracle.

Paul says that the body which came out was not the body which was planted.

Paul says the body that was planted was just a seed which was dead.

If you went to bed last night, and a different body got up, leaving your dead body as a seed from which the 'spiritua' body emerged (as plants emerge from seeds)....

Steven thinks seeds buried in the ground produce plants that are spirits.

I always thought seeds changed into plants - an enhanced and glorified form of the seed and are physical in nature. I must be wrong.

---------------------------------------

Mark’s Gospel has none of the birth stories of Luke.

So Mark has Jesus family as sceptical, while Luke has Mary knowing she is carrying her Lord and Saviour and has the cousin of Jesus leaping for joy in the womb. (What idiocy Christians have written…..)

If Luke’s Gospel is true, then how could the family of Jesus have been sceptical, especially as they had 30 years of seeing the literally Christ-like, sin-free behaviour of Jesus, already exhibited when he was just 12.

Steven thinks if the bible is errant the Rez is false. He also must think asking the same type of questions over and over means something.

Goose says this was 'sibling rivalry'. (He just made that up, of course. He needed to say something, so he thought for a bit and then made up the sibling rivalry)

Steven is stumped by my answer so he thought for a bit and then said I made up the idea of sibling rivalry because Steven doesn't know what else to say.

How ludicrous then that the cousin of Jesus leapt for joy in the womb, if there was such 'sibling rivalry'.

Steven doesn't know the difference between a cousin and a sibling.

Meanwhile, Matthew’s Gospel has many holy men rising from their graves and appearing to ‘many’ in Jerusalem. And nobody else writes about such an amazing event, witnessed by ‘many’

Steven thinks arguments from silence make good arguments.

Even after that the Jews don’t believe, and early Christian converts are baffled by the whole concept of corpses rising from graves, even when so many corpses allegedly rose from graves.

Steven still thinks that because people were baffled and didn't believe that this shows the Rez hypothesis to be false.

Christianity? Professional wrestling has more credibility.

Steven sounds like a WWF fan.

[Goose]

You left out an important part of that paragraph. That makes it a very misleading quote. A little unethical? Here's the full paragraph, and the last sentence or two clearly means there are better explanations.

"We have better evidence of alien spaceships and abductions than we have of a resurrection. There were/are living eyewitnesses interviewed. Photos and radar images. Visual sightings by experienced pilots. Yet, hardly any serious analyst or scientist thinks alien visitors is the best explanation for this evidence. Do you?"

MrWhy, I wasn't trying to be unethical. I think that's a little harsh. My apologies if it came across that way. But your UFO examples are invalid. I'll address this in a post to Duke as he has raised the same questions.

[Goose]

You opened your reply to me by mentionining that you were looking at all the evidence. To be frank, there is none. What we have in the case of the resurrection are a set of claims; unsupported claims being used to prop up other unsupported claims...

Duke, that's the way of ancient history. At some point it regresses to an unsupported claim if we can get back to a source, eyewitness or not. Occasionally we have corroboration from other sources or archaeological evidence that can assist. At the end of day, ancient claims (and some modern) are unsupported to a degree.

We discount the supernatural because what you call supernatural claims I see as simply being unsupported scientific claims.

This is the problem. The supernatural by definition just like history cannot be subjected to the scientific process. There are many things we accept as true or that exist that science cannot prove. Such as the existence of love, logic or truth. Yet we know those things exist and are true. We know logic is logical yet science cannot tell us it is. If I understand you correctly, we can only know what science tells us. If that is your position there are two problems with it. First, science by definition is limited to what it can evaluate because of the type of evidence it can accept for observation. So it is not all encompassing. Secondly, the rule that we can only know for certain what science can tell us is self-defeating because it can not itself be subjected to the scientific process and is therefore unscientific.

...but for evidence, you're pointing to the people & testimonies of individuals who very clearly believed they'd experiened something Supernatural....

Thats the Genetic Fallacy

...If you were honest about "looking for the explanation that has explanatory power, scope and accounts for all the evidence" you wouldn't be using five claims as evidence.

Why not? You haven't provided a valid reason yet to reject those facts. Those 5 facts are NOT supernatural. The "claims"(5 facts) are supported by evidence so they are not unsupported as you continually say. Now, you may not like the evidence that supports the facts or the source it comes from, but that's your problem not mine.

You'd start from a blank slate. Assume you know nothing of the Rez and look at the big picture. Would you look at Scientology the same way you look at Christianity? Would you assume there was some bieng called Xenu who populated the planet with humans?... or would you instead do the honest thing: look at Scientology as something created by a group of people to start a new religion.

The honest thing would be to give any religions' claims a fair shake. If you have a better answer for the question for debate that has more explanatory power and accounts for the all evidence than the Rez, we can go ahead and conclude Christianity is untrue and move to the next religious claim. Until that point, bringing up other religions smells like a Red Herring.

Actually, let's try something. Let's see what else gets through your criteria:

UFO's:

1. Eyewitness attestation - Check. We've got plenty.
2. Early attestation (the earlier the better - written during the lifetime of possible eyewitnesses is preferred) - Check again. Plenty of recorded interviews of people who saw things within days of their alleged happenings.
3. Multiple independent attestation (independent does not mean non-Christian, but rather independent from other sources) - Check. People all over the world have claimed to have seen "grays".
4. Enemy or neutral source attestation - Plenty of neutral sources willing to say there's life on other planets.
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”) - Plenty of people have risked embarrassment to tell their UFO tales.

5 for 5. By your own logic, it's acceptable to believe in UFO's. Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster also pass this test in the same manner.

I'm sorry, Goose, but your five criteria are critically flawed. They assume too much. I'll revise them in the next post.

You've applied the methodology and criteria incorrectly. First, this is an historical methodology were using. Secondly, by assuming there are UFO's and then passing the evidence for UFOs through the criteria, you beg the question that UFO's exist. It would be the same if I said OK let's pass the Rez through the criteria. We have witnesses, multiple attestation etc. If I did, I would be begging the question that the Rez happened. But that is NOT what is happening. We are passing pieces of evidence through a criteria to see if they first hold up to historical scrutiny to be considered as a fact. Then, we are looking for the best explanation for those facts. If the best explanation that encompasses all the evidence and has scope and power is a natural one then so be it. If it's a supernatural one, why reject it?

Also, you are taking UFO sightings as plural and combining evidence from multiple claims. Remember, the claim is not that resurrections happen all over the world, but there was one specific time and place. So, to truly draw a comparison, what you need to do is find your best case for a UFO sighting and we'll evaluate it on it's own merits and pass the evidence through the criteria first. Then we'll look for the best explanation of the facts that emerge from that process.

This is to Duke, MrWhy, and Cmass. The UFO, Bigfoot, Tooth Fairy red herring analogies are invalid. Whether or not UFO's exist is irrelevant to the Rez. The Rez either happened or it did not. Tooth Fairies could exist and the Rez could be the wrong conclusion. UFO's may exist and the Rez could be true. They are unconnected. Your arguments run something like this:

Argument A:
1. There is better evidence for UFO's than for the Rez
2. Scientists and rational people do not believe in UFO's
3. Therefore by default no rational person can believe in the Rez

Argument B:
1. The evidence we have for UFOs is better than the Rez
2. Christians believe in the Rez
3. Therefore by default Christians should believe in UFOs

Premise (1) in arguments A and B is an anachronism and a categorical fallacy. We have "better" evidence for UFOs than the Rez, because of 20th/21st century technology. Camera's weren't around in the first century (unless you guys know something I don't). The Rez is an ancient historical question. UFOs are modern phenomena. The Rez theory is a supernatural explanation. UFOs are NOT supernatural. If UFOs exist they would be presumably tangible in nature.
Premise (2) in argument A is a generalization. It commits the fallacy of appeal to authority as well as popularity. I'll bet there are some normal and intelligent people that believe in UFOs. In fact, I'll bet there are scientists that believe that life probably exists in other parts of the universe. You guys, as atheists, should believe life exists elsewhere. If we found life elsewhere that would show the odds of life generating spontaneously on earth are not that improbable. If life exists elsewhere, UFO's are more probable. If UFO's exist there is life elsewhere. You guys should be fighting tooth and nail to find evidence for the existence of Aliens and UFOs.
Conclusion (3) in argument A is demonstratably false.
Conclusion (3) in argument B is a nonsequitur. Every claim whether supernatural or not should be evaluated on it's own merits. The evidence should be looked at for each claim and an explanation found that best accounts for the evidence. People don't generally believe a claim on the sole basis we have "better" evidence for that claim. We don't believe in one thing because we believe in another on simple criteria such as we have photo graphs of that one thing and not of the other that we already believe in.

---------------------------------

Is this criteria for the claim itself or the evidence that supports the claim? That I wasn't sure about.

I'll point a out a few problems and also pass through your criteria the event of Caesar crossing the Rubicon. That way we know if your criteria is faulty or valid. It's also ironic that you use Alexander the Great as an example in your first criteria. The first biography of him comes approximately 400 years after. There is hardly a whisper of evidence before that for his existence. The silence is astonishing for the King of the world at his time. Alexander is another person you obviously believe existed yet the evidence for his existence is hideously poor by comparison to that for Jesus. At any rate...

1.1 Eyewitness accounts of believable phenomenon.

Believable phenomenon simply means we require more evidence for claims which we know to be false at face value. i.e. "Alexander the Great had an army" is a believable phenomenon whereas "Alexander the Great had no army because he could fly and shoot lasers from his eyes" is not believeable. We need further evidence before we can entertain such a claim.

Right off the bat, your criteria has problems. You have a serious subjectivity issue. What is "believable" for you is different for me. You are forcing us to draw a true or false conclusion before we've even looked at the evidence. You're also begging the question again with your opening sentence of the criteria "Believable phenomenon simply means we require more evidence for claims which we know to be false at face value." How can we KNOW the claim to be false BEFORE looking at the evidence? Don't you see the fallacy here? This seems to be inescapable for you. I also don't think it's any coincidence this is your very first criteria.

Rubicon: Caesar having an army is "believable." Caesar crossing the Rubicon with an army and marching on Rome knowing the potential consequences? I don't know, that's sounds like it's in the realm of "unbelievable" I'm going to need some extra ordinary evidence to believe it.

1.2 Evidence of eyewitnesses.

It's easy to invent an eyewitness by simply writing "So and so saw such and such." We need evidence the eyewitnesses exist. Any compelling evidence eyewitnesses are fabricated greatly diminishes the chances the claim is true.

I don't have big problem with this one. However, this criteria when applied to ancient history could be problematic as many people do not have corroborating evidence that they existed. Your buddy Philo is a good example. Also, evidence the eyewitnesses exist isn't evidence that they wrote the work in question. You need a seperate criteria to establish that.

Rubicon: We have the anonymous writings of Civil Wars. But, how do we know Caesar even wrote them? The earliest manuscripts we have are hundreds of years after. They are copies of copies of copies. Who knows who made what changes for what reasons? Maybe some Caesar fans that favoured Imperialism altered the texts. And even if Caesar did write the Civil Wars, he doesn't expressly say "I crossed the Rubicon". There aren't any other surviving eyewitness accounts. Heck, I'm even wondering if Caesar existed at all.

1.3 Motivation of eyewitnesses.

Assuming eyewitnesses exist, why are they relating their tale? If they did not exist, why were they invented?

I don't have a problem with taking into account motivation. Though I don't see this as a legitimate criteria as much as a reason for you to doubt Christian writings. Remember, just because someone is biased, doesn't mean they are untrustworthy.

Rubicon: Caesar, if he even wrote the Civil Wars, has a vested interest in promoting himself as a hero and great military leader. Depicting himself as crossing the Rubicon would help build this image. So he probably lied about crossing.

2. Physical evidence.

This broad category covers quite a bit... from artifacts to locations. It's very often a requirement for eyewitness accounts of unbelievable phenomenon.

Physical evidence is fine by me. But you're back to "unbelievable" again. Also, some claims simply won't have much in the way of "physical" evidence do to the nature of the claim.

Rubicon:I don't know how we could have physical evidence that a person crossed a river. We might have some coins and artefacts depicting it. But that only shows that someone with the power to manufacture coins BELIEVED Ceasar crossed the Rubicon. Or the manufacturer had a vested interest to make the coins to show the great military leadership of Caesar. Actually, I'll bet Caesar had some coins commissioned and never even crossed the Rubicon, but sent his twin instead.

3. Motivation / ulterior motives.

Similar to 1.3, is there a compelling reason for any individuals to fabricate the event in question? Who stands to gain from it and why? If there is an ulterior motive for the claims made, then the claim is that much less believable.

I don't have a problem with this either. But you've got another hurdle. Almost all of ancient history, indeed even modern, is written by people with a bias or axe to grind.

Rubicon:Caesar definitely stood to gain from depicting himself as a great military leader and showing that he led his troops valiantly across the Rubicon. In fact, most historians believe he fudged a lot in his favour to make himself look good. The earliest biographies come 120-170 years after and are written by biased sources.

Congratulations! We've proven Caesar never Crossed the Rubicon.

I don't know, Duke. I got the impression your criteria was created with the sole purpose of proving Christianity false. But you've shown the criteria to also call into question a historical event that is considered rock solid in the process. Maybe the methodology is flawed. I've also notice that much of your criteria hangs on eyewitness testimony. The problem with that is much of ancient history is reported second hand. So you've obliterated a good portion if not most of ancient history with that. Alexander the Great wouldn't even get a foot in the door with that criteria.

So, no. It isn't reasonable to believe the rez took place or that Jesus existed. [1]What is reasonable is that a new religion spread amongst the disheartened Jews of the 0070's based on Jewish / pagan / Roman mythology and a handful of rabble rousing rabbis from earlier in the century. [2]It's reasonable to believe that these first Christians convinced their followers through a combination of emotional appeals (avoidance of guilt, hope, etc.) that one of these rabble rousers had actually been the literal messiah.* [3]It's rational to believe this small cult was endorsed by Constantine for purely political reasons. Constantine was in a power struggle to become emperor and in declaring himself a Christian (safe in Gaul / Brittania where there were no Christians) he gained a gurilla force ready to wreak havoc for him in the name of their god. When Constantine won, he institutionalized the fabrication from a few centuries earlier.

Theory [1] Who started it? Who were the rabble rousing rabbis? Where is the evidence? Why don't we have a name of the initiator or the rabble rousers? All major world religions seem to attribute their start to one person. How come Christianity would be different? Why did they start it? Why make it a controversial religion that would put you at odds with others and cause you to be persecuted?
Theory [2] Why do we have the data from Acts, Clement, Josephus, and early church fathers for disciples that were willing to be persecuted for their faith in a religion they knew to be only a concoction? You need more theories to explain away that data too.
Theory [3] I don't know how Constantine plays into the Rez.

You need many more theories to account for all the evidence. You're not done yet. What you've offered is certainly not the most plausible explanation that accounts for all the facts and has explanatory power.

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.

[Beto]

I don't know, Duke. I got the impression your criteria was created with the sole purpose of proving Christianity false. But you've shown the criteria to also call into question a historical event that is considered rock solid in the process. Maybe the methodology is flawed. I've also notice that much of your criteria hangs on eyewitness testimony. The problem with that is much of ancient history is reported second hand. So you've obliterated a good portion if not most of ancient history with that. Alexander the Great wouldn't even get a foot in the door with that criteria.

Must be the reason not many people devote their entire lives to something totally dependent on Alexander the Great's, or Caeser's, alleged achievements, or other questionable historical accounts.

[TruthSeeker1]

I don't know, Duke. I got the impression your criteria was created with the sole purpose of proving Christianity false. But you've shown the criteria to also call into question a historical event that is considered rock solid in the process. Maybe the methodology is flawed. I've also notice that much of your criteria hangs on eyewitness testimony. The problem with that is much of ancient history is reported second hand. So you've obliterated a good portion if not most of ancient history with that. Alexander the Great wouldn't even get a foot in the door with that criteria.

Must be the reason not many people devote their entire lives to something totally dependent on Alexander the Great's, or Caesar's, alleged achievements, or other questionable historical accounts.

Exactly! It is more than a bit sad that a person (Goose) goes to great lengths to argue that a perfect, all powerful, and all knowing being left evidence for His divinity that at BEST lines up with other ancient stories. Weird to think that an all knowing being who is not bound by time and would know what the future would hold would not endow humanity with better evidence than other ancient events or people. Even stranger still, is the idea that this perfect being will torture for all of eternity those who do not believe the resurrection story, this despite the fact that the evidence for the resurrection even according to Goose only rises to the level of other historical events from thousands of years ago.

One must wonder why Goose and other Christians would have such low expectations of a perfect being. I suspect the desire to have eternal life and a relationship with a God over-rides Goose's ability to examine the evidence with a more critical and objective eye. The amount of presumptions Goose makes in declaring his 5 "facts" is critically damaging to his argument, and beyond his "facts" there just isn't much to go on.

[stevencarrwork]

Steven thinks the word "garbage" is in the bible. I'd like to see where Paul calls his former Pharisaiacla beliefs "garbage" in Galatians.

Goose thinks Paul kept to his former Pharisee beliefs, such as the importance of circumcision, keeping days, eating kosher food etc etc.

Shows you how much Goose has read of Paul, if he thinks Paul did not abandon Pharisee beliefs.

He certainly abandoned Pharisee proof-texts of the resurrection. He uses none of them in 1 Corinthians 15 when trying to prove to the Jesus-worshippers that Jesus had become a spirit.


I mistyped.

I meant Philippians 3:7, where he trashes his former beliefs as a Pharisee.

So where is your evidence that Jesus rose from the grave?

Steven has already forgotten about the OP. Steven thinks the only evidence we have is Paul.

Goose tells us not to look at what the early Christians believed, ignore the fact that neither James nor Peter wrote one word about a corpse rising from the grave, and look at anonymous works written decades later....

But let us account for ALL the data.

Why did people convert to Jesus-worship in Corinth and still scoff at the idea that God would choose to raise a corpse?

Why was the church in Thessalonia worried about their fellow Christians who had become corpses?

Steven thinks that if converts doubted or were confused about the nature of the resurrected body then the Rez is false.

Can you imagine Goose writing the same thing if early converts to Mormonism had scoffed at the idea of Joseph Smith translating Golden Plates?

Talk about double-standards!

Why had these people converted to Jesus-worship?

As Goose read Acts 17, which claims that people converted to Jesus-worship because they were told about corpses rising.

Just looking at letters written by Christians to other Christians (indeed Christians that Paul calls 'enriched in every way', 'not lacking in any spiritual gift'), shows that early converts accepted that Jesus was still alive, but scoffed at the idea that God would choose to raise a corpse.

Paul reassures these people not to worry about the earthly body being destroyed.

They will get a heavenly body.

2 Corinthians 5
Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.

Notice the 'tent' analogy.

We currently live in one building. At the resurrection , we will move into a different building, an eternal one.

Resurrection is a moving from one building to another , in Paul's analogy.

That is why Paul never mentions any corpse rising from the grave. and never gives any eyewitness details of what a resurrected body is like.

[stevencarrwork]

GOOSE
I always thought seeds changed into plants - an enhanced and glorified form of the seed and are physical in nature. I must be wrong.

CARR
You are. Plants germinate from seeds. Something emerges from the case of the seed, which is discarded.

Paul uses the words 'naked seed'. The seed has no material.

Paul goes on to say that God gives it a body.

When the body of Jesus was buried in the ground, did God give it a body? I thought Jesus already had a body.

Paul says that the seed dies.

That is why the Corinthians were idiots to wonder how a corpse could rise. Paul tells them that the corpse is dead, and God will give them a body.

A spiritual body, not made of flesh and bones like Adam's body, but one made of heavenly material.

[The Duke of Vandals]

Goose:

At the end of day, ancient claims (and some modern) are unsupported to a degree.

1) The claim of the rez requires considerable evidence considering A) it happened in the equivalent of that era's blogger community and B) requires us to believe things we know to be impossible.

2) I'm sorry to say, but your opening paragraph smacks of cop-out. We have considerable evidence of Ceasar including but not limited to coins bearing his image, busts made by sculpters during Ceasar's lifetime, written accounts, indirect accounts and other artifacts.

Stating "ancient claims are unsupported" is an attempt on your part to lower the bar.

The supernatural by definition just like history cannot be subjected to the scientific process.

This is a gross and all too common misunderstanding that I will allow Richard Dawkins to explain.

• "[Theists] are apt to quote the late Stephen Jay Gould's 'NOMA' — 'non-overlapping magisteria'. Gould claimed that science and true religion never come into conflict because they exist in completely separate dimensions of discourse:
  
  • To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists.
  This sounds terrific, right up until you give it a moment's thought. You then realize that the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science. A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. God could clinch the matter in his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular demonstration of his powers, one that would satisfy the exacting standards of science. Even the infamous Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis — by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients. It didn't, of course, although a control group who knew they had been prayed for tended to get worse (how about a class action suit against the Templeton Foundation?) Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God's existence has yet appeared.
  
  To see the disingenuous hypocrisy of religious people who embrace NOMA, imagine that forensic archeologists, by some unlikely set of circumstances, discovered DNA evidence demonstrating that Jesus was born of a virgin mother and had no father. If NOMA enthusiasts were sincere, they should dismiss the archeologists' DNA out of hand: "Irrelevant. Scientific evidence has no bearing on theological questions. Wrong magisterium." Does anyone seriously imagine that they would say anything remotely like that? You can bet your boots that not just the fundamentalists but every professor of theology and every bishop in the land would trumpet the archeological evidence to the skies.
  
  Either Jesus had a father or he didn't. The question is a scientific one, and scientific evidence, if any were available, would be used to settle it. The same is true of any miracle... " *

So, when you state the supernatural cannot be subjected to scientific inquirty you're (at best wrong) or (at worst) being dishonest. The truth is the supernatural claims in the rez are scientific claims which lack support. Understand that any question that has a definite answer that's true for everyone everywhere is a scientific question. Be careful not to confuse a limit of technology with a limit of science.

You went on to accuse me of using the Genetic Fallacy. It's quite clear from the examples you provided** this is not the case. The context of the statement I made is summarized thusly: You're attempting to ignore the supernatural claims made by the individuals you're quoting. This has nothing to do with an irrelevant origin. Instead, it has to do with arguing honestly. The Christian tactic appears to be:

• Ignore all supernatural claims from the gospels. "Nevermind all that stuff about walking on water and coming back from the dead."
• Attempt to prove the claims made in the gospel are historically accurate. "The people who claimed the stuff you're neverminding, they saw somethin'."
• Subtely re-introduce the supernatural claims. "Remember all that stuff you're supposed to nevermind?..."

EDIT:

Well, it appears a massive chunk of my post was eaten by the interweb. *grumbles* At least it didn't get it all.

The bottom line here is the criteria from your op allow any eyewitness account to be considered "probable" no matter how improbable or outright impossible it may be. UFO's? Bigfoot? Loch Ness Monster? There are accounts of all of these things from alleged eyewitnesses. According to your criteria, we should believe these things exist right? After all, no piece of evidence has to meet all the criteria and so long as it meets one, we're good.

It's quite obvious you've created a special set of rules for Christian evidence which you're unwilling to apply to anything except Christianity.

------------

Sources


*http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dawkins ... index.html

** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy