Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[Subduction Zone]

I know I would be.

Yes, that is what happens when on uses critical reasoning tools. But most theists do not apply those to their faiths.

 

[lukethethird]

Yes, that is what happens when on uses critical reasoning tools. But most theists do not apply those to their faiths.

They don't know how to. All we get from them is word games.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

The Baha'i Faith does not have doctrines and that is why I deny it.

Teachings are not doctrines.

Google: does the baha'i faith have doctrines

Three core assertions of the Baháʼí Faith, sometimes termed the "three onenesses", are central in the teachings of the religion. They are the Oneness of God, the Oneness of Religion and the Oneness of Humanity. They are also referred to as the unity of God, unity of religion, and unity of mankind.

Baháʼí teachings - Wikipedia​

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Baha'i Faith does not have doctrines and that is why I deny it.

Teachings are not doctrines.

Google: does the baha'i faith have doctrines

Three core assertions of the Baháʼí Faith, sometimes termed the "three onenesses", are central in the teachings of the religion. They are the Oneness of God, the Oneness of Religion and the Oneness of Humanity. They are also referred to as the unity of God, unity of religion, and unity of mankind.

Baháʼí teachings - Wikipedia​

Yes, doctrines.


Tell me, what do you think that doctrines are?

 

[Apologes]

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.

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

Now you're just straining to avoid admitting the obvious point. My hypothetical was very simple

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

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."

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

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[lukethethird]

The Baha'i Faith does not have doctrines and that is why I deny it.

Teachings are not doctrines.

Google: does the baha'i faith have doctrines

Three core assertions of the Baháʼí Faith, sometimes termed the "three onenesses", are central in the teachings of the religion. They are the Oneness of God, the Oneness of Religion and the Oneness of Humanity. They are also referred to as the unity of God, unity of religion, and unity of mankind.

Baháʼí teachings - Wikipedia​

For crying out loud, take it to a Bahai thread.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, doctrines.

Tell me, what do you think that doctrines are?

Doctrine
noun

1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.

Doctrine Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

The Baha'i beliefs are not taught to Baha'is the way the Christian beliefs are taught to Christians by the Church.

That is one reason why they are not doctrines. We call the Writings of Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi the Baha'i teachings and we are all supposed to study and learn them ourselves.

Another reason they are not doctrines is because the UHJ of the Baha'i Faith did not create doctrines from the Baha'i Writings the way the Christian leaders created the doctrines of Christianity by interpreting the Bible. All Baha'is are instructed to go directly to the Writings and interpret them for ourselves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Doctrine
noun

1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.

Doctrine Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

The Baha'i beliefs are not taught to Baha'is the way the Christian beliefs are taught to Christians by the Church.

That is one reason why they are not doctrines. We call the Writings of Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi the Baha'i teachings and we are all supposed to study and learn them ourselves.

Another reason they are not doctrines is because the UHJ of the Baha'i Faith did not create doctrines from the Baha'i Writings the way the Christian leaders created the doctrines of Christianity by interpreting the Bible. All Baha'is are instructed to go directly to the Writings and interpret them for ourselves.

They do not have to be taught the same way. That has nothing to do with concepts being doctrines or not. And as you see by the definition that you used you do have doctrines.

Now you very well may have a superior way of teaching them to your believers , but they are still doctrines.

 

[Trailblazer]

For crying out loud, take it to a Bahai thread.

It was not me who started talking about the Baha'i Faith having doctrines.

Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

What we're looking for is the best explanation, not just a possible one. The best explanation is that, if the gospel resurrection stories are true, what the disciples saw was the spiritual body of Jesus that had risen after His physical body had died. A spiritual body can look exactly like a...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

For crying out loud, take it to a Bahai thread.

People tend to ignore those threads. This one is pretty dean anyway.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was not me who started talking about the Baha'i Faith having doctrines.

Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

What we're looking for is the best explanation, not just a possible one. The best explanation is that, if the gospel resurrection stories are true, what the disciples saw was the spiritual body of Jesus that had risen after His physical body had died. A spiritual body can look exactly like a...

www.religiousforums.com

So what? You were talking about your faith. And you yourself showed that you do have doctrines.

 

[Trailblazer]

So what? You were talking about your faith. And you yourself showed that you do have doctrines.

I respond and talk about my faith because I won't tolerate people misrepresenting my faith.
Nowhere on the internet will you find any websites that say the Baha'i Faith has doctrines, but websites referring to the Christian doctrines are plastered all over the internet. Why do you think that is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I respond and talk about my faith because I won't tolerate people misrepresenting my faith.
Nowhere on the internet will you find any websites that say the Baha'i Faith has doctrines, but websites referring to the Christian doctrines are plastered all over the internet. Why do you think that is?

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.

 

[Apologes]

According to this idea, was Elvis also resurrected? The number of sigtings of Elvis after his death number in hundreds of thousands at least.
If not....you would have to accept that this shows a clear cut modern example of how a fanatical group of followers can convince themselves...through a mix of hallucinatory sightings, wishful thinking and rumor...that their beloved figure did not actually die but is alive and will return at an appropriate time.

I absolutely do accept that those sorts of things can happen. Mass delusion is a thing, I'm not denying that a priori, it is a possible explanation. This is why competing hypotheses should be compared to see which satisfies the 5 criteria better (or at least the first 4 since illumination is more of a bonus criteria).

The next possibility is that the group that followed Jesus is self selected. They were people who were already religiously primed to have visions and expectations of a break with usual reality. It is easy for such a group to be manipulated by a select coterie of high tier followers who wanted to keep the cult alive after Jesus's death. It is possible that the Jesus group leaders created the rumor of Jesus's resurrection and it would take only a few suggestions here and there till the followers will themselves believe that they have sighted him "here and there". Many cults have made people believe and see far far extreme things and in the ancient world, such things can be seen and believed much more easily.

It is very unlikely that the disciples invented the resurrection story. The apostles suffered greatly for their proclamations and they knew this would happen. Their leader was just killed and they could be next. It's unlikely that they would invent the story to continue on with the cult when they knew what persecution awaited them. I'm not saying they were martyred but that they were ostracized and humiliated for their beliefs is pretty well established. I'm not saying this proves their beliefs were correct, it just shows they were sincere in holding them.

Furthermore, this doesn't explain the appearance to Paul who was a persecutor of the Church and yet he experienced something that made him convert. Your theory (as vague as it is) only attempts to explain the disciples and doesn't do that very well and as such lacks explanatory scope and power.

Let us understand something. History cannot trump the natural sciences, but must stay within its limits. This is because history is made of primarily fallible and partially recovered writings of ordinary fallible humans who (in ancient days and even today) wrote with many different selfish aims, with little regard for actual truth of the matter. All ancient historical chronicles are propaganda of some kind or the other, and are not disinterested documents. Historians today try to sift through these subjective propaganda accounts to try to ascertain what may have happened and how different parties viewed the events as they happened. But their inferences are always constrained by understandings of of sociology, human psychology and natural laws. Under no circumstances can a historian go beyond them....for NO historical testimony can ever be strong enough to be taken against the grain of what has been established as can and cannot happen through careful observations of medical, physical and biological sciences.

Your complaint boils down to the argument lacking plausibility because it goes against what is established by natural sciences. Thing is, as I said numerous times in this thread, there is no scientific fact that says there is no supernatural component to the world, that is by definition beyond the scope of science. If you're going to protest reference to the supernatural you're merely being guided by your naturalistic biases.

Lincona should have read historiography before embarking on a fruitless venture such as this....but then he only wanted to preach to the choir I feel.

Licona is a New Testament scholar so I am sure he read historiography before, the book literally is about historiography. Instead of telling Licona what he should've read, I suggest you actually read the work in question because if you did you'd know it's a scholarly work that serves as a contribution to the dialogue in which critical scholars take part. Preaching to the choir couldn't be further away from truth.

 

[joelr]

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:


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?

Licona did a day-long debate with Jesus historian Bart Ehrman. Licona is not a qualified historian, has no skills in the field or knowledge about methodology. No historian agrees with what he believes and his book is not peer-reviewed by a historical academic press.
I have seen him debate Ehrman is the shorter form. This one hasn't been released yet.

Licona makes assumptions that are not warranted. Many things have been demonstrated by evidence to historians that Licona refuses to accept.
The Gospels copied are re-wrote Mark - the Synoptic Problem.
Mark is the first and written using a variety of sources including the OT, Paul and other works of fiction like the Romulus story (he also dies and ascends to heaven).
One myth is not many sources.

Paul only saw a vision and knows none of the Gospel narrative except Jesus died and resurrected in a new body. He easily could have bought into the story and added this extra to be convincing and make his opinions (he had many) more powerful.
The theology is a mix of Judasim, Hellenism and Persian myths. Which are fiction.

Before the debate Ehrman did some videos

Most People Have No Clue What The Gospels Are!


5:04 Scholars realize the Gospels are saying different things


8:30 Ehrman on apologist arguments

10:09 Did the disciples write the Gospels, no, historical evidence says no. There are very good reasons how this is known. They do not claim to be eyewitnesses and written by very high level Greek writing. The illiterate people in the story were not the writers.


12:35 Did the Gospel authors care about what actually happened. -


The Gospels contain historical information and they contain legendary information.


14:40 Can we trust the canonical Gospels? Gospels date probably from 40-65 years after Jesus death. NT writers would not have known eyewitnesses but may have sources who knew stories.

These stories have been passed down for many many years. Each writer probably thought they were writing the “one” Gospel.

Genesis, White Jesus, and Debating the Resurrection (with Dr. Bart Ehrman)

22:50 It has to do with how do you know what happened in the past. Can you say somebody was raised from the dead never to die again? Is that like a historical statement or…it’s a Christian belief, but is it historical? How do you decide what’s historical? How many historians who write books about the 2nd World War claim that the allies won because God intervened at the Battle of the Bulge? If you are going to do it with Jesus how do you justify that?

25:17 No historian (from that time) chronicles any events you find in the Gospels, there are huge historical problems with the Gospels.

26:30 He (Mike Licona) is wrong, the implications that you can prove Christianity to be true are troubling and problematic.

28:23 The Gospel accounts of Jesus resurrecting are not historical and do not pass any historical criteria.


(After this interview Ehrman held a day long debate with Apologist/fundamentalist Mike Licona explaining why the Gospels are not history)
Side note, Licona admitted in a debate that the story about Saints raising from the grave during the resurrection were not literally true. He was immediately fired from the fundamentalist university where he worked.

32:12 Jesus central message was wrong. He believed the end of the world was coming in his own generation, all the forces of evil would be destroyed, resurrection of the dead, kingdom of God would come. (This is a Persian myth, Dr Ehrman doesn’t get into other myths, he just deals with what’s in the Gospels and it’s OT origins)

34:55 The idea that Jesus preaches family values is wrong. Jesus tells followers to leave family behind and follow him. This was not possible for family at this time. Leaving a wife was a death sentence for her and children.

The actual origins of this is likely something that happened after Jesus. After Jesus died stories circulated that he was raised, some people believed it some didn’t which would split family members. Jesus did not likely actually have that type of influence when he was alive. Much of what was said about Jesus is almost certainly not historical.

36:55 Ehrman on crucifixion - “God killed his own son, really?”

Not well known, actual Christian theologians are more like philosophers, the good ones are incredibly smart and all have problems with the atonement idea.

Ehrman believes after Jesus was killed for crimes against the state the disciples have to figure out what to do with that because he was supposed to be the messiah who saved them from the Romans. This led to them connecting magic blood sacrifice which was done with animals with a more potent magic of a savior.

(Ehrman doesn’t look to Hellenism or any other theology to explain this, he keeps everything within the religion)

40:30 Why would God need apologist and why do they all disagree on doctrine so much? Religion is not historical, not based on history or logic, it’s a belief based on faith.


42:18 You cannot accept the resurrection without faith. It isn’t an accident that only Christians believe the resurrection. If it were provable everyone else would believe it.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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

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

On what basis would you assign a low plausibility to God choosing to raise Jesus from the dead a priori?

If we are talking about a man being raised from the dead, God has no compelling reason to do so. The man is not lost to God but only to those who are part of time. They are lost to us not to God. Every person dead to us is alive to God, just in a different time. Our limitation is that we cannot visit the dead; but God is with them. For God it is no different than being everywhere. God is also every 'When'. If it would help I could also reference some canonized scripture that I think demonstrates God is unmoved by our own feelings of loss.

It is a poor offering that could be worded better, but I think you understand what I am trying to say about God and time. What is the compelling reason for God to raise a dead person? I do not see how it benefits God.

he thinks it's the best explanation because it satisfied all the criteria listed better than the alternatives. It takes into consideration all of the data, explains it without straining it, doesn't go against known facts and isn't adding any assumptions to explain away the data.

I am late to this party. I have read the first 3 pages of this thread.

 

[sayak83]

I absolutely do accept that those sorts of things can happen. Mass delusion is a thing, I'm not denying that a priori, it is a possible explanation. This is why competing hypotheses should be compared to see which satisfies the 5 criteria better (or at least the first 4 since illumination is more of a bonus criteria).



It is very unlikely that the disciples invented the resurrection story. The apostles suffered greatly for their proclamations and they knew this would happen. Their leader was just killed and they could be next. It's unlikely that they would invent the story to continue on with the cult when they knew what persecution awaited them. I'm not saying they were martyred but that they were ostracized and humiliated for their beliefs is pretty well established. I'm not saying this proves their beliefs were correct, it just shows they were sincere in holding them.

Furthermore, this doesn't explain the appearance to Paul who was a persecutor of the Church and yet he experienced something that made him convert. Your theory (as vague as it is) only attempts to explain the disciples and doesn't do that very well and as such lacks explanatory scope and power.



Your complaint boils down to the argument lacking plausibility because it goes against what is established by natural sciences. Thing is, as I said numerous times in this thread, there is no scientific fact that says there is no supernatural component to the world, that is by definition beyond the scope of science. If you're going to protest reference to the supernatural you're merely being guided by your naturalistic biases.



Licona is a New Testament scholar so I am sure he read historiography before, the book literally is about historiography. Instead of telling Licona what he should've read, I suggest you actually read the work in question because if you did you'd know it's a scholarly work that serves as a contribution to the dialogue in which critical scholars take part. Preaching to the choir couldn't be further away from truth.

You rejected the Elvis Presley example saying " I absolutely do accept that those sorts of things can happen". But in the Elvis Case it did happen with hundreds and thousands of sighting of the King everywhere in USA. So your opinion on what can or cannot happen seem very suspect.

Regarding your second point:-
The founders and their first followers of many religious cults usually want to start a revolution whose main aim is to upend usual power structures and bring them up to power if the revolution succeeds. Such groups usually attract desperate people who feel deeply marginalized by the current power structures and are suffering physically and mentally to the point that they wish to either destroy the current power holders or die in the process. Example include Muhammed of Islam or Zhang Jue of China (yellow turban revolt...look it up). After a failed uprising in Jerusalem led by Jesus (that is what it was), there was urgent need to revive the movement in order to retain support so that the other leaders were not prosecuted by the authorities. If the support base collapses, then they are sure to be picked up one by one and put to death. If they movement retains support than they can gain protection and continue to wield influence through the support and build it up further for a future success (see Hitler....he was imprisoned after his first revolution failed...but there was enough support for him to be successful later). What you seem not to understand is wanting power entails risks....most the emperor claimants for Rome died violently and those that succeeded also died mostly violently in future coups. But power is attractive...very attractive. And risk of death has hardly stopped people from trying to get them.

Have to run. More later.

 

[Apologes]

You rejected the Elvis Presley example saying " I absolutely do accept that those sorts of things can happen". But in the Elvis Case it did happen with hundreds and thousands of sighting of the King everywhere in USA. So your opinion on what can or cannot happen seem very suspect.

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.

After a failed uprising in Jerusalem led by Jesus (that is what it was), there was urgent need to revive the movement in order to retain support so that the other leaders were not prosecuted by the authorities. If the support base collapses, then they are sure to be picked up one by one and put to death.

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.

 

[Apologes]

If we are talking about a man being raised from the dead, God has no compelling reason to do so. The man is not lost to God but only to those who are part of time. They are lost to us not to God. Every person dead to us is alive to God, just in a different time. Our limitation is that we cannot visit the dead; but God is with them. For God it is no different than being everywhere. God is also every 'When'. If it would help I could also reference some canonized scripture that I think demonstrates God is unmoved by our own feelings of loss.

It is a poor offering that could be worded better, but I think you understand what I am trying to say about God and time. What is the compelling reason for God to raise a dead person? I do not see how it benefits God.

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.

 

[pearl]

but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters.

Yes, Luke embellishes Paul's experience far beyond what Paul himself wrote.