Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[Truthseeker]

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

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

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

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

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

I go by the criteria that dead people stay dead. Whatever experience they had I believe was an intangible Jesus, his spirit, so to speak.

 

[leroy]

I see that you you still can't get that one right. That is not the argument. That is the result of the argument being correct.


Then you reject the miracle stories. Somehow I doubt that you will go with the explanation that is more parsimonious.

Oh okay you are not.

It may not be the most important point. That is true. But his argument fails almost all of his standards.

Sorry , we already have a conversation from previous post,

deal with your unsupported claims , instead if adding new elements to the conversation.

 

[Truthseeker]

There is a virtually unanimous consensus among scholars that this is a very early tradition and that's one of the reasons why it's taken as a historical fact that the disciples had experiences which they interpreted in such a way.

I notice he doesn't includes Mary Magdalene, though in all the Gospels she was the first to see Him. Is that male misogamy, or something else? Also Paul's is reported in Acts as a voice talking to him. Is that one accurate, or is the physical nature of Christ depicted in Luke accurate? It is accepted that the same author wrote both Luke and Acts.

 

[Trailblazer]

He was trying to illustrate how you were wrong in your definitions. A doctrine is still a belief, it is gives the beliefs of a religion. Where a belief may be a small part of a doctrine. A singular belief is not all doctrine. Mammal is a larger overarching group. It is akin to a doctrine. A cat is a mammal, but it is not the entire overarching group.

That is basically what I just said to @ppp before I read what you said, although you further elaborated on what I said.

But listen carefully. My original issue was with @ppp saying that Baha'i Faith has doctrines.
The Baha'i Faith does not have doctrines because we have no Church, political party, or other group that teaches the beliefs that Baha'is hold.
Baha'is are enjoined to study the Baha'i Writings individually and sometimes in a group of other Baha'is.

doctrine: a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.

Oxford Languages and Google - English | Oxford Languages

Google’s English dictionary is provided by Oxford Languages. Oxford Languages is the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries globally in more than 50 languages.

languages.oup.com

By contrast, Christianity has doctrines because they have Churches that teach the beliefs that Christians hold. For example:

Essential Doctrines of Christianity​

by Matt Slick | Nov 23, 2008 | Doctrine and Theology, Christianity

The Bible itself reveals those doctrines that are essential to the Christian faith. They are 1) the Deity of Christ, 2) Salvation by Grace, 3) Resurrection of Christ, 4) the gospel, and 5) monotheism. These are the doctrines the Bible says are necessary. Though there are many other important doctrines, these five are the ones that are declared by Scripture to be essential (I call them primary essentials since the Bible declares them as essential). A non-regenerate person (i.e., Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness, atheist, Muslim), will deny one or more of these essential doctrines. Please note that there are other derivative doctrines of scripture that become necessary also and the Trinity being one.

Essential Doctrines of Christianity

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry , we already have a conversation from previous post,

deal with your unsupported claims , insread if adding new elements to the conversation.

All claims that needed support were supported I am just randomly correcting you at this point.

 

[Trailblazer]

Or more accurately, a doctrine is usually a list of beliefs that define the system of beliefs of a group.

that is taught by a church, political party, or other group.

 

[ppp]

But listen carefully. My original issue was with @ppp saying that Baha'i Faith has doctrines.
The Baha'i Faith does not have doctrines because we have no Church, political party, or other group that teaches the beliefs that Baha'is hold.

Doctrine refers to a set of beliefs or principles that are taught and upheld by a particular religion, philosophy, or organization. It serves as a formal, systematic explanation or statement of the fundamental beliefs, principles, and teachings that guide the practices and behaviors of the followers or members of that religion or organization.

You may have seen this at some point in the past:

Independent Investigation of Truth
Elimination of Prejudice of Every Kind
The Oneness of Humanity
One Essential Foundation for All Religions
Religion Should Cause Love, Affection, and Joy
The Harmony of Science and Religion
A Universal Auxiliary Language
Universal Compulsory Education
Gender Equality
Establishing a World Parliament
The Abolition of the Extremes of Wealth and Poverty
The Non-Involvement of Religion With Politics
Human Rights for All

 

[leroy]

I

So once we are aware that the genre of biography may contain propaganda, we can no longer simply take it at its word in my view.

All ancient text had propaganda, historians know how to deal with this and we know how to extract truths from that propaganda.

This is why we can establish the 3 facts mentoned in the OP

 

[Trailblazer]

You may have seen this at some point in the past:

Independent Investigation of Truth
Elimination of Prejudice of Every Kind
The Oneness of Humanity
One Essential Foundation for All Religions
Religion Should Cause Love, Affection, and Joy
The Harmony of Science and Religion
A Universal Auxiliary Language
Universal Compulsory Education
Gender Equality
Establishing a World Parliament
The Abolition of the Extremes of Wealth and Poverty
The Non-Involvement of Religion With Politics
Human Rights for All

Those are not doctrines. They are the "teachings" of the Baha'i Faith.

 

[Truthseeker]

Licona actually argues for the existence of God based on the resurrection argument being correct.

That sounds circular to me. God exists, so the resurrection is possible. The resurrection happened, therefore God exists.

 

[ppp]

Those are not doctrines. They are the "teachings" of the Baha'i Faith.

Yep. Doctrines.

 

[Truthseeker]

Those are not doctrines. They are the "teachings" of the Baha'i Faith.

What? Here we go again. We start with a thread about the Resurrection, and an argument about the Baha'i Faith breaks out. Is there some rule here against that? Also who cares if they are called teachings or doctrines. it is splitting hairs.

doctrine: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief (Webster's)
teaching: something taught (Webster's)

 

[danieldemol]

All ancient text had propaganda, historians know how to deal with this and we know how to extract truths from that propaganda.

This is why we can establish the 3 facts mentoned in the OP

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.

 

[Truthseeker]

that is taught by a church, political party, or other group.

I don't go by the google definition, which is specific to our culture, but by Webster's, which is not.

doctrine: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief (Webster's)

 

[Left Coast]

I've got a little time now so I'm back!

The big thing that struck me was the same thing I corrected the other guy for, when I said it's a historical fact that Jesus was a miracle worker and an exorcist, you expressed disbelief because you took me as saying it's a historical fact that Jesus actually performed miracles and exorcised demons. But it doesn't matter, just giving an example of what lead me to that conclusion.

Well hold on, then. If Jesus being a "miracle worker" does not mean that he actually performed miracles, then the addition of that detail to the equation changes nothing in terms of assessing the probability of miracles happening. So let's read back your original question to me:

"Sure, on its own its unlikely but suppose I also knew the person claiming to have made it appear magically also has a reputation of a renowned magician. Would you say this changes nothing?"

So go ahead and answer your own question there, based on what we've both just agreed: if being a "magician" has no bearing on whether we can say he actually did magic, then should that detail change anything in our assessment of whether magic made the cup appear?

Ok, what if we had a bunch of scientists doing all sorts of possible tests and they come to the conclusion that there is no conceivable way that he could've placed the cup there?

Now you're just straining to avoid admitting the obvious point. My hypothetical was very simple: if you walk into a room and see a drinking glass sitting on a table, and I tell you I made the glass appear by casting a magic spell, based on what you know about the world, is that explanation plausible, or is it implausible? There's one correct answer here.

(For whatever reason, maybe there was no one in the room at the time of it appearing or whatever.) If all possible natural explanations for the cup appearing fail to explain it adequately would you be willing to posit a miracle as an explanation or would you just chalk it up to mystery, saying we don't know how they did it but it must've been natural?

Well first of all, I don't know how we'd ever know that we exhausted all possible natural explanations. All we could say is that we've ruled out all known potential explanations. We don't know what we don't know. Sometimes, the answer is simply that. If you want to put forward some positive explanation for an event, you need to have evidence for that explanation in particular, not just say, "well we don't know, so it must be magic."

I'm not explaining the resurrection, I'm using the resurrection as an explanation for the historical bedrock. As stated in a previous post (I'll repeat it here since I intend to focus on our discussion as I said earlier) Licona doesn't make reference to God in the resurrection hypothesis which he states as follows:

"Following a supernatural event of an indeterminate nature and cause, Jesus appeared to a number of people, in individual and group settings and to friends and foes, in no less than an objective vision and perhaps within ordinary vision in his bodily raised corpse." (Chapter 5.7.1. Description of the Resurrection View)

But again, this still requires a premise that isn't included in the original "bedrock" facts. You have to assume that the supernatural exists. That was my point there - the three "bedrock" facts aren't sufficient to get you to the resurrection. You have to add at least that major 4th premise into the mix.

I know I made reference to God wishing to raise someone from the dead but if we're going to stick to Licona's argument as he defends it he would say that the plausibility of a miracle would be directly linked to one's horizon. If naturalism is true it's unlikely that a miracle is an explanation but if supernaturalism is true the miracle as an explanation becomes far more likely. We need to look at the data and bracket our worldviews or we'll be driven by our horizons rather than the evidence.

Even if miracles occur, you would reasonably have to concede that they're vastly less frequent than natural phenomena - and thus, vastly less probable an explanation, all else being equal. You're arguing for an event that is one out of trillions. You recognize this, yes?

 

[Trailblazer]

That sounds circular to me. God exists, so the resurrection is possible. The resurrection happened, therefore God exists.

I love it. I see you are learning something from the atheists we have on board.

 

[lukethethird]

Those are not doctrines. They are the "teachings" of the Baha'i Faith.

Then take them to a Bahai thread.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All ancient text had propaganda, historians know how to deal with this and we know how to extract truths from that propaganda.

This is why we can establish the 3 facts mentoned in the OP

No, historians do not support those "three facts'. The second one definitely fails. You may be conflating apologists with historians.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those are not doctrines. They are the "teachings" of the Baha'i Faith.

In other words doctrines. If there is a unified teaching, everyone has the same version of Baha, then you have doctrines.

Why do you deny that? Once again you make yourself look as if you are ashamed of your faith.

 

[lukethethird]

In other words doctrines. If there is a unified teaching, everyone has the same version of Baha, then you have doctrines.

Why do you deny that? Once again you make yourself look as if you are ashamed of your faith.

I know I would be.