Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[Brickjectivity]

Your argument is theological rather than historical so it falls outside the scope of historical inquiry. We would have to assume your theological views of God and Him raising someone from the dead so that He could be with them. This is a very strange view that I fail to see any reason to believe in. Never the less, the context of Jesus' life and death precisely is the reason for why God would want to raise him (even the generally unmotivated God you propose) as it would be a sign of divine vindication of Jesus as proof he was who he claimed to be both to his disciples and his enemies.

I can only say I am sorry that I am unfamiliar with the book you have read, and I respect your studiousness. With such limited exposure to the material I felt I could only reply to the comment that I replied to. Of course I understand that it is not a historical kind of argument, and I don't mean to detract from your interesting discourse.

 

[Apologes]

I can only say I am sorry that I am unfamiliar with the book you have read, and I respect your studiousness. With such limited exposure to the material I felt I could only reply to the comment that I replied to. Of course I understand that it is not a historical kind of argument, and I don't mean to detract from your interesting discourse.

It's ok.

 

[sayak83]

I'm sorry what? I said that I accept the explanations you provided (hallucinations, delusion etc) as possible and don't dismiss them beforehand. I outlined reasons for why they aren't sufficient for explaining the historical bedrock.



I am curious about why you think (and more importantly how you can assert so bluntly) that Jesus attempted a government coup. I am unaware of any historical sources for the claim. I'm aware of the popular book by Reza Aslan, Zealot but this isn't a work of a scholar and the scholarly reception to his work has been critical because (among other things) it repeats the now widely rejected 19th century scholarship. I would like to see your sources for this portrayal but know from the start that it's not a widely held view among scholars whereas what is listed in the bedrock is.

Let's start with the first explanation. I will go to the next.
What in the Elvis example is not sufficient the explain the Jesus resurrection claims? What "bedrock" claim does it not explain?
One other thing: you are having a mistaken belief that NT scholars are doing history. NT scholarship is primarily a religious studies and apologetics branch. Almost nobody in that field (including licona) have a degree in history at all. Their work is similar to Quaranic studies scholars that many Islamic universities have or Gita studies that various Hindu theological schools have. That is why mainstream history books or associated journals have nothing to do with their work usually.

 

[pearl]

Speaking of resurrections, where is the robust defense of Matthew 27:50--53? One would expect that such an occurrence would have cotten more press back in the day.

* [27:51–53] Veil of the sanctuary…bottom: cf. Mk 15:38; Lk 23:45. Luke puts this event immediately before the death of Jesus. There were two veils in the Mosaic tabernacle on the model of which the temple was constructed, the outer one before the entrance of the Holy Place and the inner one before the Holy of Holies (see Ex 26:31–36). Only the high priest could pass through the latter and that only on the Day of Atonement (see Lv 16:1–18). Probably the torn veil of the gospels is the inner one. The meaning of the scene may be that now, because of Jesus’ death, all people have access to the presence of God, or that the temple, its holiest part standing exposed, is now profaned and will soon be destroyed. The earth quaked…appeared to many: peculiar to Matthew. The earthquake, the splitting of the rocks, and especially the resurrection of the dead saints indicate the coming of the final age. In the Old Testament the coming of God is frequently portrayed with the imagery of an earthquake (see Ps 68:9; 77:19), and Jesus speaks of the earthquakes that will accompany the “labor pains” that signify the beginning of the dissolution of the old world (Mt 24:7–8). For the expectation of the resurrection of the dead at the coming of the new and final age, see Dn 12:1–3. Matthew knows that the end of the old age has not yet come (Mt 28:20), but the new age has broken in with the death (and resurrection; cf. the earthquake in Mt 28:2) of Jesus; see note on Mt 16:28. After his resurrection: this qualification seems to be due to Matthew’s wish to assert the primacy of Jesus’ resurrection even though he has placed the resurrection of the dead saints immediately after Jesus’ death.

Call it Monday morning quarterbacking.

 

[pearl]

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

Was there not already a pharisaic belief in resurrection before Jesus?

 

[sayak83]

I'm sorry what? I said that I accept the explanations you provided (hallucinations, delusion etc) as possible and don't dismiss them beforehand. I outlined reasons for why they aren't sufficient for explaining the historical bedrock.



I am curious about why you think (and more importantly how you can assert so bluntly) that Jesus attempted a government coup. I am unaware of any historical sources for the claim. I'm aware of the popular book by Reza Aslan, Zealot but this isn't a work of a scholar and the scholarly reception to his work has been critical because (among other things) it repeats the now widely rejected 19th century scholarship. I would like to see your sources for this portrayal but know from the start that it's not a widely held view among scholars whereas what is listed in the bedrock is.

There is no instance of anyone in Roman world getting crucified unless he or she is part of an insurrection against the authorities. Crucifixion is a specific punishment reserved for treason and insurrection alone. If the Jesus account has any historicity to it, then the fact of crucifixion on the charge of proclaiming himself king and leading a mob of his followers (armed mob) into the Temple is it. That he was not arrested there and then implies that his group was quite strong and he was picked up only later in the night after the mob has dispersed.
It seems somewhat similar to what happened with the US Parliament building and it's near but failed storming by the Trump supporters. It may be the case that this modern Trumpist movement may get chronicled by its supporters in a book 20 years from now...and it is not hard to see that the book will portray the movement as heroic having divine support for its semidivine leader and will strive to whitewash it's violent tendencies.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What exactly do you mean by fiction? You mean that the 3 alleged facts from the OP are fiction?

I mean that I believe that the most likely reason that the Bible reports a witnessed resurrection is because the claim, which was borrowed from earlier demigod legends, would be believed and would make Jesus a demigod in people's minds rather than merely a prophet.

Are you holding the claim that naturalistic hypotheses are *always* better than supernatural ones ? Or are you simply saying that supernatural hypotheses are intrinsically less likelly ? I would agree on that if you have 2 hypothesis that are equally good in explaining the events one should go for the more parsimonious hypothesis. But I would say that that we shouldn't always prefer the more parsimonious hypothesis. Parsimony is not the only nor the most important criteria.

My position is that the narrative that requires the fewest assumptions is always preferred. Presently, we have naturalistic hypotheses for the origin of universe, it's self-assembly into filaments of galaxies of solar systems, and abiogenesis and the development of the tree of life, and it appears that the universe operates without intelligent oversight. Nobody is needed to push the sun through the sky or electrons through wires.

This doesn't mean that there was no god involved or that there is no supernatural realm, just that neither is needed for the scientific narrative. If that changes following some discovery that strongly suggests otherwise, then the narrative will need to be made more complicated to account for that addition, but still, we will choose the simplest narrative that accounts for all relevant observation.

We start with a thread about the Resurrection, and an argument about the Baha'i Faith breaks out.

I didn't see an argument break out, just a polite discussion. It's curious to me how often you use the language of conflict to describe disputation. I have an acquaintance that is extremely averse to all conflict, and tries to end discussions with differences of opinion as quickly as possible. He only sees disagreement as strife. I think of it as a type of PTSD.

The Baha'i position on resurrection is welcome with me wherever Christian and atheistic positions on the matter are found. I learned seeing that list ppp provided, which I Googled to discover was of Baha'i origin. ON first glance, I thought it might be humanistic in origin (apparently I glossed past "Religion Should Cause Love, Affection, and Joy"), although I noted and found the inclusion of harmony between science and religion a little out of place. Also, though I couldn't disagree with, "Independent Investigation of Truth," when I read it, now that I know it comes from a religion, I doubt it means what I would mean by those words, and it seems much less humanistic now, which would more likely make a statement about reason and evidence as the path to knowledge not using the word truth.

who cares if they are called teachings or doctrines. it is splitting hairs.

I care. I'm very interested in word usage and origins. And I like to be accurate and precise (those words mean different things). A doctrine is taught. Doctor originally meant teacher, not specifically a physician.

 

[Apologes]

Let's start with the first explanation. I will go to the next.
What in the Elvis example is not sufficient the explain the Jesus resurrection claims? What "bedrock" claim does it not explain?

I said so already but we seem to be talking past each other. Can you elaborate in more detail which of the phenomena you listed specifically applied to which appearance? Just listing them in a row is very vague and I don't know what you have in mind.

One other thing: you are having a mistaken belief that NT scholars are doing history. NT scholarship is primarily a religious studies and apologetics branch. Almost nobody in that field (including licona) have a degree in history at all. Their work is similar to Quaranic studies scholars that many Islamic universities have or Gita studies that various Hindu theological schools have. That is why mainstream history books or associated journals have nothing to do with their work usually.

While New Testament historians typically don't have a PhD in history, they are a part of the wider discipline of biblical criticism which draws expertise from all sorts of other disciplines including theology like you mentioned but also history and textual criticism. Those authors writing on this particular subject have undergone training in history and when writing on this topic actually do history. As such they often refer to themselves as historians despite not technically having that academic title. For example, Bart Ehrman, one of the leading New Testament scholars is technically a textual critic but will almost always refer to himself as a historian, will write books on history and engage work of other historians.

I don't know what the situation is like with Quranic studies but to paint New Testament scholars as doing cheap apologetics would be a gross misrepresentation, not the least because they're comprised of people of various beliefs from atheist to committed Christians. I understand why someone would be concerned with an academic working under a statement of faith but at least for the discussion we're having it should be a relief that the consensus that declares the 3 facts as historical bedrock is very diverse, is comprised of experts engaging the relevant disciplines and as such is immune to the criticism that it's a product of bias.

There is no instance of anyone in Roman world getting crucified unless he or she is part of an insurrection against the authorities. Crucifixion is a specific punishment reserved for treason and insurrection alone. If the Jesus account has any historicity to it, then the fact of crucifixion on the charge of proclaiming himself king and leading a mob of his followers (armed mob) into the Temple is it. That he was not arrested there and then implies that his group was quite strong and he was picked up only later in the night after the mob has dispersed.
It seems somewhat similar to what happened with the US Parliament building and it's near but failed storming by the Trump supporters. It may be the case that this modern Trumpist movement may get chronicled by its supporters in a book 20 years from now...and it is not hard to see that the book will portray the movement as heroic having divine support for its semidivine leader and will strive to whitewash it's violent tendencies.

Do you have any evidence for that claim? I've seen plenty of resources state that crucifixion was also used for thieves, murderers, slaves rebelling against their masters, religious transgressions etc. I'm genuinely interested where you're getting this information. Regardless, even if that is true, I believe Jesus was crucified on that charge, however he could've been charged with that for proclaiming himself the king of the Jews. This would be taken as treason and would be enough for Pilate to crucify him. This is the traditional story as found in the Gospels and it found support from skeptical scholars. I do not see the need to postulate Jesus arriving at the temple with an armed mob, especially when the only extra-biblical account of this is talking about a vague incident at the Temple. What this incident was exactly we don't know. (Well, we don't know unless we look at the Gospels narrative of cleansing the temple, although it could've been something else.)

 

[Brickjectivity]

I have an acquaintance that is extremely averse to all conflict, and tries to end discussions with differences of opinion as quickly as possible.

No I don't!

 

[Left Coast]

No, it establishes that the life of Jesus had a religiously charged context

What does this weird phrase mean? Lots of people are religious. Lots of people have been some sort of religious leaders. Lots of figures in myth and history have been alleged to do miracles. Yet i'm willing to bet you still don't believe most of them who are alleged magicians actually do magic. So again, this contributes nothing to thr probability that magic actually happened.

which when combined with the rest of the bedrock for the life of Jesus that Licona goes over (such as Jesus understanding himself to be God's eschatological agent) offers a symmetry breaker between his and the ordinary people's deaths.

More premises that have to be demonstrated that are not part of the "bedrock" we were originally presented with.

Your hypothetical was indeed simple but it was also very disanalogous to the case of Jesus due to the facts surrounding him and not you, a regular person. But regardless of that I asked that question because I wanted to establish if you're ever open to the supernatural being an explanation or if you're one of those that even if they see an obvious miracle such as a behaded man suddenly getting up, reattaching his head and parading around town, they would still call it a strange anomaly of nature just to avoid the supernatural. (extreme example for illustration's sake but I've seen people like that)

Whoa whoa whoa. You've seen headless people get up and walk around? When? Where?

Or you mean you've seen people who would say they don't know how to explain such a thing? Yeah, that sounds pretty reasonable. "The supernatural" isn't an explanation any more than "the natural" is. What is the actual cause and mechanism by which the thing happened? That's what an explanation is.

You seem to be hinting at such a stance in the following:



While it's true we shouldn't use god of the gaps arguments, the argument of Licona is an inference to the best explanation.

No, it isn't. It's an appeal to magic. Those are the worst sorts of explanations, because they actually explain nothing. The resurrection isn't an inference here; it's a preconceived conclusion that apologists attempt to reason backwards to somehow get to. It's the opposite of how someone reaches conclusions when they are being objective and using critical thinking.

It looks at the data and constructs a hypothesis that would explain the data. That means working with known options. If you would rather accept no explanation than a supernatural explanation then that just shows that you're driven by your horizon.

Resurrection isn't a known option, though. Every piece of data we have about death tells you we don't come back after we die. The only reason you regard it as a known option is because your religion taught you that's what happened. It's not a conclusion you'd come to on your own based on the evidence.

No, it requires an openness to the supernatural. As said earlier, a historian should bracket his worldview and refrain from assuming that naturalism or supernaturalism is true. We look at the data without bias and see what explains it better.

If we don't have to assume supernaturalism is true, then supernatural explanations are off the table for historians. Supernatural explanations are only possible if the supernatural exists.

Moreover, how would we be able to tell that some phenomenon is caused naturally in a way we don't understand yet vs. caused supernaturally?

But all else isn't equal considering the context of Jesus life and death.

Remember that all we were told were the three "bedrock" facts: Jesus was crucified, and early Christians claimed to have experiences they interpreted as Jesus appearing to them after his death. If you want to add more context, again, those other premises will have to be defended with evidence. We've already covered the fact that him being a "miracle worker," even if we grant that description, tells us nothing about whether actual miracles were done.

 

[Apologes]

What does this weird phrase mean?

A religiously charged context is just that, a context of a person, event or thing that is charged with religious significance. I explained that it's purpose isn't to establish miracles but to provide a symmetry breaker between the life and death of Jesus and the life and death of regular people. Most people aren't miracle workers and exorcists who proclaim themselves to be God's eschatological agents and so you can't point to them to show that since whatever supernatural force there may be out there didn't raise them, it also didn't raise Jesus. Sure, there are other religious leaders with different claims but even if there were identical claims that subset would be so small that the a priori argument you're using would be greatly undercut.

More premises that have to be demonstrated that are not part of the "bedrock" we were originally presented with.

You said you were familiar with Licona's work so I assumed you'd know what I'm referring to in the previous paragraph and this. The bedrock presented in the OP is the historical bedrock for the fate of Jesus. What I'm talking about here is a historical bedrock for the life of Jesus, that is facts about Jesus' life that enjoy the support of a virtually unanimous consensus. The two I mentioned are a part of it. I don't feel the need to argue much for them for the same reason I don't feel the need to argue for the 3 facts from the OP. I can if you want, but that they're accepted by scholars from atheists to Christians should tell you enough already.

Whoa whoa whoa. You've seen headless people get up and walk around? When? Where?

Or you mean you've seen people who would say they don't know how to explain such a thing? Yeah, that sounds pretty reasonable. "The supernatural" isn't an explanation any more than "the natural" is. What is the actual cause and mechanism by which the thing happened? That's what an explanation is.

You're being uncharitable here. It should be obvious I was referring to people who would deny the supernatural aspect of such an occurence if they witnessed it, instead chalking it up to unknown natural phenomena.

No, it isn't. It's an appeal to magic. Those are the worst sorts of explanations, because they actually explain nothing. The resurrection isn't an inference here; it's a preconceived conclusion that apologists attempt to reason backwards to somehow get to. It's the opposite of how someone reaches conclusions when they are being objective and using critical thinking.

It is the 3 facts that are claiming the resurrection. It is up to a scholar to construct a hypothesis that explains these facts. Making a hypothesis that involves the resurrection actually happening is no more backwards than making a hypothesis that it didn't happen. Your attempt at dismissing one side as not being objective or critical in their thinking is just a sign that you're not open to hypotheses that might challenge your worldview.

A serious discussion could be had about whether the supernatural is an explanation and I actually have an objection to the argument that goes along those lines, but saying the above is just a cheap retort of dismissing the opposition as dishonest which has no place in a meaningful discussion like this.

Resurrection isn't a known option, though. Every piece of data we have about death tells you we don't come back after we die. The only reason you regard it as a known option is because your religion taught you that's what happened. It's not a conclusion you'd come to on your own based on the evidence.

When I said known option I mean something that can conceivably happen, something that could provide an explanation. It doesn't have to do with whether we've observed it or not.

And to your claim that it's not something I'd come up on my own I repeat that it is in the facts that the resurrection is mentioned. The disciples who had these experiences and Paul believed that they were appearances of the risen Jesus. You're acting like the resurrection is being shoehorned into a case that has nothing to do with it. The question is did it happen and if not what else best explains these facts.

If we don't have to assume supernaturalism is true, then supernatural explanations are off the table for historians. Supernatural explanations are only possible if the supernatural exists.

You seem to have trouble understanding the point of bracketing worldviews. You shouldn't approach the data with an assumption that supernaturalism is true or false. Instead, you look at the data and compare hypotheses. If the data is best explained by the supernatural then so be it. To do otherwise is to just not allow any explanations that would go against your horizon. Historians need to follow the data not their ideology.

Moreover, how would we be able to tell that some phenomenon is caused naturally in a way we don't understand yet vs. caused supernaturally?

And this is exactly the point that I was getting at with my example of a headless man. If you would look at that and conclude that it's not supernatural but just an unknown natural explanation then you are ignoring an explanation that's available because you don't want to accept the supernatural.

Remember that all we were told were the three "bedrock" facts: Jesus was crucified, and early Christians claimed to have experiences they interpreted as Jesus appearing to them after his death. If you want to add more context, again, those other premises will have to be defended with evidence.

I am honestly doubting that you have engaged Licona's work at any serious length when you claim this sort of ignorance of what he's saying. Why don't you honestly say what exactly did you read from him, if nothing else so that I can know what parts I need to elaborate on and what you will understand.

 

[sayak83]

I said so already but we seem to be talking past each other. Can you elaborate in more detail which of the phenomena you listed specifically applied to which appearance? Just listing them in a row is very vague and I don't know what you have in mind.

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

While New Testament historians typically don't have a PhD in history, they are a part of the wider discipline of biblical criticism which draws expertise from all sorts of other disciplines including theology like you mentioned but also history and textual criticism. Those authors writing on this particular subject have undergone training in history and when writing on this topic actually do history. As such they often refer to themselves as historians despite not technically having that academic title. For example, Bart Ehrman, one of the leading New Testament scholars is technically a textual critic but will almost always refer to himself as a historian, will write books on history and engage work of other historians.

I don't know what the situation is like with Quranic studies but to paint New Testament scholars as doing cheap apologetics would be a gross misrepresentation, not the least because they're comprised of people of various beliefs from atheist to committed Christians. I understand why someone would be concerned with an academic working under a statement of faith but at least for the discussion we're having it should be a relief that the consensus that declares the 3 facts as historical bedrock is very diverse, is comprised of experts engaging the relevant disciplines and as such is immune to the criticism that it's a product of bias.

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

Do you have any evidence for that claim? I've seen plenty of resources state that crucifixion was also used for thieves, murderers, slaves rebelling against their masters, religious transgressions etc. I'm genuinely interested where you're getting this information. Regardless, even if that is true, I believe Jesus was crucified on that charge, however he could've been charged with that for proclaiming himself the king of the Jews. This would be taken as treason and would be enough for Pilate to crucify him. This is the traditional story as found in the Gospels and it found support from skeptical scholars. I do not see the need to postulate Jesus arriving at the temple with an armed mob, especially when the only extra-biblical account of this is talking about a vague incident at the Temple. What this incident was exactly we don't know. (Well, we don't know unless we look at the Gospels narrative of cleansing the temple, although it could've been something else.)

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

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you accept that Elvis sightings have been widely reported for decades after his death?

And yet we have zero mention of him in Deutero-Isaiah.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is a reference of armed Jesus followers in NT itself. How does a group of followers enter the temple area on a very very important day and create serious enough disturbance and mayhem to force the Romans to not arrest them then, but arrest the leader later in the night in secret? Only a numerically superior and threatening armed mob can be the explanation. Roman imperial authority was brutal but not idiots.

In fact, they were probably smart enough not to take the story as gospel truth.

 

[Apologes]

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

Of course it's possible but I see you've refused to lay out in more detail how you think it happened. Vague mentions of such phenomena without attention to the differences in these situations are hiding the weakness of this argument.

The question here is....how much value can we put on assertions made by a group of people who are basically scholars of religious studies about matters of history and historicity. Jesus studies is a niche cottage industry run by a group whose methods are not cross-verified by actual historians

You are just repeating yourself without taking into account what I said. They do have the skill set. Your attempts to discredit them all beforehand is just telling.

and whose conclusions vary over such a huge spectrum (Jesus never existed to Jesus was resurrected!!).

For someone supposedly well-read in history you seem ignorant of the degree to which all sorts of other things are contested. Also, the idea that Jesus never existed isn't even worth mentioning as basically noone believes that. It's akin to adding young-earth creationism to a spectrum of scientists views. It's a crank view.

Have you ever seen a 3 volume 7000 page tome written by any historian on any important figure of ancient history (Alexander, Pericles or even Caeser?) I have seen such things on Jesus, several such ponderous tomes (James Dunn, N T Wright, Habermass etc etc). Yet the actual material available is far far ....far less. And they are frankly peer reviewing each other! If you read them....you will see that they NEVER refer to any historical method that had been applied by other historians in constructing the life of any other historical figure outside Biblical ones (say Socrates or Hannibal etc.) After reading their work over a period of years....it has become clear to me that their work is like a pack of cards....a gigantic behemoth of assumptions and rationalizations resting on little if any actual solid evidence. So, I am sorry. I do not have any confidence in their findings.

But they do look at and borrow methodologies from other historians. The 5 criteria is one of them.

Look at sources. I have read many books on this many years ago. I can dredge them up.

Ok.

CRUCIFIXION - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

jewishencyclopedia.com

"The following crimes entailed this penalty: piracy, highway robbery, assassination, forgery, false testimony, mutiny, high treason, rebellion"

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

It's true that the New Testament shows some of Jesus' followers carrying a weapon (like when one cuts off a soldiers ear), but I wasn't aware you're taking the New Testament as historical in that regard. If so, it should be noted that Jesus leading an armed mob is never described. Again, such a thing would be mentioned in sources rather than just a passing mention of a controversy in the Temple. Describing an armed uprising as "controversy" is an understatement to say the least. Again, I would like you to provide the sources for your claims.

 

[Left Coast]

A religiously charged context is just that, a context of a person, event or thing that is charged with religious significance. I explained that it's purpose isn't to establish miracles but to provide a symmetry breaker between the life and death of Jesus and the life and death of regular people.

It only provides a "symmetry breaker" (another odd phrase) if Jesus actually did miracles. Did he? What do most scholars think? What is the evidence?

Most people aren't miracle workers and exorcists who proclaim themselves to be God's eschatological agents and so you can't point to them to show that since whatever supernatural force there may be out there didn't raise them, it also didn't raise Jesus.

Actually I can. How many people who proclaim themselves to be miracles workers actually do miracles?

You said you were familiar with Licona's work so I assumed you'd know what I'm referring to in the previous paragraph and this. The bedrock presented in the OP is the historical bedrock for the fate of Jesus. What I'm talking about here is a historical bedrock for the life of Jesus, that is facts about Jesus' life that enjoy the support of a virtually unanimous consensus. The two I mentioned are a part of it. I don't feel the need to argue much for them for the same reason I don't feel the need to argue for the 3 facts from the OP. I can if you want, but that they're accepted by scholars from atheists to Christians should tell you enough already.

Everything you've mentioned, aside from the existence of the supernatural, does not help your case, as I've explained to you now point by point.

You're being uncharitable here. It should be obvious I was referring to people who would deny the supernatural aspect of such an occurence if they witnessed it, instead chalking it up to unknown natural phenomena.

You're arguing for a patently absurd event that contradicts all available data of how the world works. It isn't uncharitable of me, when you bring up another absurd hypothetical, for me to wonder if you think such things are real, or even possible.

It is the 3 facts that are claiming the resurrection.

And again, as we've now gone over, those three facts are insufficient. You have to add more to get to a resurrection.

It is up to a scholar to construct a hypothesis that explains these facts. Making a hypothesis that involves the resurrection actually happening is no more backwards than making a hypothesis that it didn't happen. Your attempt at dismissing one side as not being objective or critical in their thinking is just a sign that you're not open to hypotheses that might challenge your worldview.

This is silly. It's not my job to prove something didn't happen. This is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. If you want to argue that the resurrection happened, it's your job to prove it did, not everyone else's to prove it didn't. You are promoting a claim that contradicts all the available evidence of how human bodies work. By your own definition, that makes your claim implausible.

A serious discussion could be had about whether the supernatural is an explanation and I actually have an objection to the argument that goes along those lines, but saying the above is just a cheap retort of dismissing the opposition as dishonest which has no place in a meaningful discussion like this.

I didn't accuse you of dishonesty. Don't make false accusations, now. Let's take the temperature down. I don't think you're lying. I think you genuinely believe in the resurrection. I don't think you arrived at that belief through rational, objective analysis of the evidence, though.

When I said known option I mean something that can conceivably happen, something that could provide an explanation. It doesn't have to do with whether we've observed it or not.

It absolutely does. If you're alleging an event that not only you've never seen happen, but that also contradicts all the evidence we have of how the world actually works, then you have no clue if resurrection is even possible, let alone that it's a "known option." No reasonable definition of "known option" means, "anything I can think of, no matter how absurd."

And to your claim that it's not something I'd come up on my own I repeat that it is in the facts that the resurrection is mentioned.

The resurrection being something that was believed by people is in the facts. That it happened isn't. Resurrection would be as absurd now as it was then. If I told you my grandma was resurrected, would you buy it?

The disciples who had these experiences and Paul believed that they were appearances of the risen Jesus. You're acting like the resurrection is being shoehorned into a case that has nothing to do with it. The question is did it happen and if not what else best explains these facts.

People have all kinds of experiences of what they think are supernatural phenomena. The question is - are they? How often do you believe them?

You seem to have trouble understanding the point of bracketing worldviews. You shouldn't approach the data with an assumption that supernaturalism is true or false. Instead, you look at the data and compare hypotheses. If the data is best explained by the supernatural then so be it. To do otherwise is to just not allow any explanations that would go against your horizon. Historians need to follow the data not their ideology.

On the contrary sir, with all due respect it seems to be you who has difficulty understanding this concept.

Both the naturalist and the supernaturalist agree that natural phenomena occur. They don't agree that supernatural events occur. So if they are both bracketing their worldviews, the only candidate explanations they're going to entertain will be natural ones. Supernatural ones, while hypothetically possible, would be outside the purview of the bracketed historical analysis of the facts. This is why you don't see historians outside of religious apologetics making supernatural claims to explain historical data.

And this is exactly the point that I was getting at with my example of a headless man. If you would look at that and conclude that it's not supernatural but just an unknown natural explanation then you are ignoring an explanation that's available because you don't want to accept the supernatural.

Hang on a minute. You didn't answer my question about this. How would you tell the difference? How would you tell if an event you're seeing is caused by something supernatural or something natural that you don't understand?

I am honestly doubting that you have engaged Licona's work at any serious length when you claim this sort of ignorance of what he's saying. Why don't you honestly say what exactly did you read from him, if nothing else so that I can know what parts I need to elaborate on and what you will understand.

The person I'm engaging with today is you. Let's pretend I've never heard of Michael Licona before or heard or read a word he's ever said. That isn't true, but it's also irrelevant. My replies here remain the same. And you will need to reproduce here whatever features of his arguments that you think are pertinent for purposes of making the case that Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[leroy]

Resurrection is none of those facts.
Consider the bedrock of facts surrounding the Elvis case.
-Elvis is known to have died.
-Numerous sightings of Elvis are reported after his death.
Do these bedrock of facts suggest Elvis was most likely resurrected?

If not it doesn't take much for the non indoctrinated to recognise the special pleading at play in my view.

So the next question would be, what is the best explanation for those facts.

In the case of Elvis we can dismissed as lies and/or hallucinations……………… nobody died (nor in the name of the resurrection of Elvis…….. this is why the case of Jesus is different.

BTW do you really think that a scholar like licona would make a 600 pages for an argument that could be easily refuted with “elvis”

Do you think that Licona and his peers didn’t consider that ?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Long, long ago, back in the OP of this thread, the question was posed:

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

Since then, a variety of objections have been raised and discussed in detail, and mostly rejected by the OP.

The sticking point seems to be over the existence of the supernatural, and whether a supernatural God would actually intervene, and if that possibility can be considered a plausible explanation--indeed, the MOST PLAUSIBLE explanation--for the STORY of the resurrection...

It seems there is no way to bridge the gap between these points of view. I'm wondering what the value of continued discussion of this topic is? What are people getting out of this back and forth?

 

[Trailblazer]

Frankly I have never looked for articles on Baha'i doctrine. But you provided an article about Baha'i doctrine. And perhaps one of your faith's doctrines is denial of the fact that they have doctrines.

EDIT: I had to look up religious doctrines:

"
Definitions of religious doctrine

1. noun
   the written body of teachings of a religious group that are generally accepted by that group
   synonyms:church doctrine, creed, gospel

Religious doctrine - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms

the written body of teachings of a religious group that are generally accepted by that group

www.vocabulary.com

Teachings are doctrines. You denied it everyone else was going "WTF? Of course they are.:

There is a possibility that one of your early teachers was bit too enthusiastic and made incorrect claims without realizing it.

The difference between the Baha'i Faith and other religions, particularly Christianity, is that we have no man-made doctrines that are 'taught' by any religious leaders. I will concede to the fact that we do have God-given doctrines, what we call the teachings.

 

[lukethethird]

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