Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Would you agree that form the point of view of what I call an agnostic (someone who roughly is 50% / 50%) the resurrection is the most probable explanation for the bed rock facts? (just assume for the sake of the argument that the 50% is granted) (and assume that the bed rock facts are likely to be true)

You are asking me that, if the god who allegedly resurrected Jesus is 50% likely to exist, and what you call the bedrock facts are probably true, that resurrection likely occurred? And by bedrock facts you mean these three claims from the OP:

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

Under those circumstances, resurrection would rise in my list of candidate explanations for what those people saw. How high? To the top? Hard to say. Maybe.

But what value is that answer to you? I don't consider gods 50% likely to exist (or any other percentage for reasons given relating to possible knowledge about unfalsifiable claims). I consider the god of Abraham, who allegedly resurrected Jesus, to be ruled out by the Book of Genesis and its creation, garden, flood, and tower myths, all of which have been falsified by science. I also don't believe that there were reports of a resurrection at the time of Jesus' death and when the stone was allegedly rolled from the tomb, but rather, were added months to years later by a mythmaker. I don't believe resurrection of a three-days decomposed body is physically possible and I don't believe in magic.

Also, an agnostic is somebody who answers "I don't know" to any question. An agnostic atheist is one with no god belief or claim of any knowledge about gods in general. Some go further and say that agnostic means not merely unanswered, but not answerable. When talking about physical reality, we can make estimates, like an estimate of finding alien cellular life, alien multicellular and animal life, alien intellect and technology, etc. The Drake equation tries to do some of that. The scientific community considers the likelihood of cellular life arising elsewhere in our galaxy and universe as much closer to 100% than 0%.

But when discussing unfalsifiable metaphysical claims about undetectable gods and supernatural realms, nothing at all can be said about the likelihood that such ideas are correct or incorrect. Such ideas are "not even wrong."

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

We can? What if Elvis faked his own death? Who cares if "nobody died in the name of the resurrection of Elvis?" What difference does that make?

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”

Who cares how long the book is? It could be filled with pictures for all I know. Lots of people have written long books that are easily refuted.

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

Perhaps not. Who knows what some other dude who isn't here knows or doesn't know?

 

[SkepticThinker]

So nothing, we simply agree on this point, Paul was not lying, he didn’t made it up,

How do you explain all the other appearances that paul reports in Corinthians 1-15

1 Corinthians 15
that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

So in your view Paul had a hallucination

What about Peter? The apearance to all the disciples? The 500 hundred? James?

Which of them where hallucinations? Which of them where invented by Paul? Which of them where invented by Paul´s sources? Which of them where leyends/rumors that Paul quoted?

Anyone can claim 500 people saw a thing. Where's the evidence? Where are those peoples' 500 different testimonies?
Come on, man. Please tell me that's not the verse you're using as evidence for mass sightings of Jesus.

 

[SkepticThinker]

(there is a Question at the end of this text please answer it)

Well the problem is that you are assuming that a god doesn’t exists or that his existence is very unlikely.………….. why are you making that assumption? Do you have conclusive arguments against the existence of a god?

If you dont have conclusive evidence against a god, then your default position should be agnosticism (we don’t know) ……… something close to 50%/50%

If we consider the intrinsic probabability of

1 a god excists (50%)

Vs

2 the disciples lied and then died in the name of a lie that they themselves invented probability 1 in thausands atleast)



I would say that 1 is more probable.

To put it simple terms , I understand and grant that under your view (naturalism is almost certainly true) the resurrection is the least probable explanation.

But

Do you grant gh that under my view (theism) or even under agnosticism , the resurrection is the most probable explanation given the “bed rock facts”?

Oh boy this one again. Do you have these stored somewhere and then just repeatedly cut and paste them over and over again, no matter how many times they've been refuted? I'm baffled as to why you'd pull this one out again. The probability for the god you believe in is not a 50/50 proposition, so you're wrong from the get-go with this one. As pointed out before by several posters.

And you're still, still, still ignoring the known fact that people believe in and die for things that aren't true, and that no matter how strongly people believe in a thing is not a demonstration of the veracity of the claim.

Nothing you've said here indicates that resurrection is the most probablE explanation.

 

[leroy]

I don't know any agnostics that would put a probability of deity at 50 percent. I think you are constructing a straw man here.

That is because the agnostics that you know are in reality internet atheist that what to avoid the burden proof (which is why they label themselves as agnostics)

Can you show any evidence for agnostics as a general rule giving a 50 percent probability?

This is just semantics, if “agnostic” is not the correct term, how would you call someone who doesn’t know if God exists or not and believes that the arguments are moreless equally good for both sides?

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is because the agnostics that you know are in reality internet atheist that what to avoid the burden proof (which is why they label themselves as agnostics)

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your 50% probability claim you've made.

I am both - I am atheist and agnostic, but I don't see what that's got to do with mathematical calculations.

This is just semantics, if “agnostic” is not the correct term, how would you call someone who doesn’t know if God exists or not and believes that the arguments are moreless equally good for both sides?

If the person doesn't have a belief in god(s) they'd be an atheist.
If the person does have a belief in god(s) they'd be a theist.

Agnostics can be atheistic or theistic.
A/gnosticism speaks to knowledge.
A/theism speaks to belief.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

That is because the agnostics that you know are in reality internet atheist that what to avoid the burden proof (which is why they label themselves as agnostics)


This is just semantics, if “agnostic” is not the correct term, how would you call someone who doesn’t know if God exists or not and believes that the arguments are moreless equally good for both sides?

"Almost equally good for both sides?" Again, you assume a 50-50, then say if you've gone that far, it may as well be 99.9 percent...

An agnostic...and thank you I know several irl, as well as those self-described here, who would and are arguing with your 'agnostics would grant a 50-50 chance...'

Nobody but theists of a certain persuasion thinks that agnostics would give any credulity at all to the propositions that 1) there is a deity, and 2) that deity would sacrifice and resurrect Jesus, and therefore, that is the most likely explanation for 1) stories about a certain man dying during the term of Pilate, b) stories about that man's resurrection, and 3) stories about another man having an auditory hallucination of the resurrected man.

Stories that are not independently attested, other than in the New Testament texts, and in other early Christian writings.

As an agnostic, I am still awaiting some evidence that is not dependent on acceptance of the Gospels as absolute truth. But so far, that is all you've offered.

 

[Subduction Zone]

(there is a Question at the end of this text please answer it)

Well the problem is that you are assuming that a god doesn’t exists or that his existence is very unlikely.………….. why are you making that assumption? Do you have conclusive arguments against the existence of a god?

Really? He is assuming that there is not a God? Where did he do that?

If you dont have conclusive evidence against a god, then your default position should be agnosticism (we don’t know) ……… something close to 50%/50%

If we consider the intrinsic probabability of

1 a god excists (50%)

Vs

2 the disciples lied and then died in the name of a lie that they themselves invented probability 1 in thausands atleast)

No, you have it backwards once again. You are conflating a rational lack of belief with assuming. We do not even know if a God is possible. Your jump to assuming that he is possible is unwarranted and your numbers are pure fiction. And you are back to your strawman argument that others have been saying that the apostles lied. Just because someone is wrong and believes something does not make him a liar. Now this may be some projection on your part. You have been shown to be wrong time and times again. But that does not necessarily make you a liar. You may have been lying and that may be why you think that the disciples would have to have been lying. And please note, we only have any reasonable level of evidence at all for Peter and Paul. We do not need the rest of the apostles. You are conflating the myths of the Gospel with evidence.

I would say that 1 is more probable.

Really, even given your silly premise that does not seem to be reasonable if one ignores your strawman arguments.

To put it simple terms , I understand and grant that under your view (naturalism is almost certainly true) the resurrection is the least probable explanation.

But

Do you grant gh that under my view (theism) or even under agnosticism , the resurrection is the most probable explanation given the “bed rock facts”?

Nope. Not even close.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok just to finish this point.

Would you agree that form the point of view of what I call an agnostic (someone who roughly is 50% / 50%) the resurrection is the most probable explanation for the bed rock facts?

(just assume for the sake of the argument that the 50% is granted) (and assume that the bed rock facts are likely to be true)

Why haven't I won the lottery? I know that by your math I should have won several times over.

 

[leroy]

You are asking me that, if the god who allegedly resurrected Jesus is 50% likely to exist, and what you call the bedrock facts are probably true, that resurrection likely occurred? And by bedrock facts you mean these three claims from the OP:

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

yes, you understood well

Under those circumstances, resurrection would rise in my list of candidate explanations for what those people saw. How high? To the top? Hard to say. Maybe.

Which other alternative would you consider ?

But what value is that answer to you? I don't consider gods 50% likely to exist

Well 99+% of the world’s population consider the existence of a god “realistically possible” and quite honestly I think that there are good arguments for the existence of a god.

All I am saying (and hopping that you acknowledge) is that form the point of view of someone who considers the existence of God “realistically possible” the resurrection is a better explanation, than other naturalistic alternatives that have been proposed (hallucinations, lies, legend, tween brother etc,)

}

Also, an agnostic is somebody who answers "I don't know" to any question.

well how would you name someone who has seen both the arguments against and in favor of a god, and considers them to be more less equally good… a draw………. (which is why he is undescided)

how would you call this person? Agnostic seems appropriate to me, but feel free to label him differently.

 

[leroy]

We can? What if Elvis faked his own death? Who cares if "nobody died in the name of the resurrection of Elvis?" What difference does that make?

Who cares how long the book is? It could be filled with pictures for all I know. Lots of people have written long books that are easily refuted.

Perhaps not. Who knows what some other dude who isn't here knows or doesn't know?

I agree , who cares, all the Elvis stuff is irrelevant.

Just ether

refute the “bed rock facts” form the OP or provide an alternative explanation and explain wh is it better than the resurrection………………… I won’t accept answers such as “naturalism win” because I say so.

 

[leroy]

Anyone can claim 500 people saw a thing. Where's the evidence? Where are those peoples' 500 different testimonies?
Come on, man. Please tell me that's not the verse you're using as evidence for mass sightings of Jesus.

• What is the point of quoting my post , if you will not answer to my question?

 

[leroy]

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your 50% probability claim you've made.

I am both - I am atheist and agnostic, but I don't see what that's got to do with mathematical calculations.

If the person doesn't have a belief in god(s) they'd be an atheist.
If the person does have a belief in god(s) they'd be a theist.

Agnostics can be atheistic or theistic.
A/gnosticism speaks to knowledge.
A/theism speaks to belief.

Again semantics.

How would you call someone who thinks that the evidence for both sides is more less equally good?..........use any label that you want…………..(or do you want a 100 post discussion on useless semantics?)

All I am saying (and I hope you acknowledge) is that from the point if view of someone who concluded that the existence of a god is “realistically possible” the resurrection is the best explanation for the facts mentioned in the OP.

I grant that form the point of view of someone who thinks that there are good conclusive reasons to deny the existence of a god. The resurrection is laughable and ridiculous, if this is you, then sure, I understand why you don’t believe in this stuff.

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your 50% probability claim you've made.

50% is just the default position.

If you have 2 options and you have no reasons to prefer one over the other, then each should have 50%.

 

[joelr]

As I said Bart claims that the apperance to Paul and the aperance to Peter where halucintations, but he says nothing about the other 4 reported by Paul in Corinthians



“ that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”

So Paul doesn't know that there were only eleven Apostles at that time because Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus and afterward committed suicide.
That's because that story hadn't yet been created, pretty obvious there.

That doesn't need be a hallucination, Paul is telling us that there is a group of religious people who are probably making claims they were visited by Jesus.
Just as Muhammad claimed to be visited by Gabrielle and Joe Smith claimed to be visited by Moroni and all religions ever start with claims of a visit from the main God or demigod.

Ehrman does talk about all these things just not in that video.
Paul is telling us information from a myth that has started decades earlier. So what is the point exactly here?

 

[joelr]

The majority of the verifiable historical facts that are reported in the gospels are true.

What facts? Places? The places in the early Mormon scripture are also real places. The places in the Quran are also real. Mormon hill in Palmyra, New York, is a real place.
The cities in the Romulus fiction are real. Romans did crucify people and although sources on Pontius Pilate are extremely limited he probably was governor. When Mark wrote his work he was clearly familiar with the Jewish war and leaders and so on.
None of the Greek mythology is verifiable historical facts? The videos I just sources said exactly that. The religion is based on faith, period?

 

[joelr]

Under that basis I assume that the documents are historically reliable and each historical claim should be granted as true unless good positive reasons are given to the contrary.

1) The gospels are not "historical claims", Mark is a myth. It is not written as history in any way shape or form. It IS written as a myth. No sources, explanations for unusual events, (Pontius Pilate, would let a violent and murderous rebel go free,and no ceremony is ever attested as having taken place), improbable events, borrowing from OT narratives, Psalms, 20 close parallels to Romulus and the RR hero myth, all found in Greek myth. Greek theology - savior demigods, salvation, baptism, eucharist, Logos, a devil, afterlife, layers of parables, ring structure and more literary devices. No religion is a historical claim. No mystery religion is a historical claim.





Myth from that time does use real people and places:





"So we already have a bit of contemporary background information showing us that fictional biographies were commonplace at the time, and thus warrant caution when examining writings that may look like histories upon first glance. However, there are also certain things we should expect to find in writings that are laden with myth and allegory as opposed to history. We can’t simply try to categorize the writings as fitting within some particular genre, as myths have been written in any and all genres, even as historical biographies (as was just mentioned), for example Plutarch’s Life of Romulus. In fact, quite a large amount of ancient biography, even of real people, was composed of myth and fiction, and thus we are forced to actually examine the content in detail to determine whether or not it is more likely to be myth or history. Some characteristics of myth include (but are not necessarily limited to): potent and meaningful emulation of previous myths, or potent emulation of real events in some cases; the presence of historical improbabilities — which is not only limited to magic or miracles, but also natural events and human behaviors that are unrealistic as well as the presence of amazing coincidences; and also the absence of external corroboration of key (rather than peripheral) elements, since a myth often incorporates some real historical people and places that surround a central mythical character and story (just as we see in most fiction, e.g., though Dorothy’s home-state of Kansas is a real place, the primary setting, main characters, and story in The Wizard of Oz, including the Wizard of Oz himself, are fictional constructs). It should be noted that not all of these characteristics need be present simultaneously for a story to be myth, but the more that are, or the more instances of each type found, only increases the likelihood that what one is reading is in fact myth rather than history."





Historical claims don't re-write the Elisha story from Kings 2, use Psalms verbatim, and many other stories. The triadic ring structure and many other devices are not how history is written.

Look at the parallels just from Jesus Ben Ananias:

1 – Both are named Jesus. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)



2 – Both come to Jerusalem during a major religious festival. (Mark 11.15-17 = JW 6.301)



3 -Both entered the temple area to rant against the temple. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)



4 – During which both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah. (Jer. 7.11 in Mk, Jer. 7.34 in JW)



5 – Both then preach daily in the temple. (Mark 14.49 = JW 6.306)



6 – Both declared “woe” unto Judea or the Jews. (Mark 13.17 = JW 6.304, 306, 309)



7 – Both predict the temple will be destroyed. (Mark 13.2 = JW 6.300, 309)



8 – Both are for this reason arrested by the Jews. (Mark 14.43 = JW 6.302)

9 – Both are accused of speaking against the temple. (Mark 14.58 = JW 6.302)



10 – Neither makes any defense of himself against the charges. (Mark 14.60 = JW 6.302)



11 – Both are beaten by the Jews. (Mark 14.65 = JW 6.302)



12 – Then both are taken to the Roman governor. (Pilate in Mark 15.1 = Albinus in JW 6.302)



13 – Both are interrogated by the Roman governor. (Mark 15.2-4 = JW 6.305)



14 – During which both are asked to identify themselves. (Mark 15.2 = JW 6.305)



15 – And yet again neither says anything in his defense. (Mark 15.3-5 = JW 6.305)



16 – Both are then beaten by the Romans. (Mark 15.15 = JW 6.304)



17 – In both cases the Roman governor decides he should release him. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)



18 – But doesn’t (Mark)…but does (JW) — (Mark 15.6-15 = JW 6.305)



19 – Both are finally killed by the Romans: in Mark, by execution; in the JW, by artillery. (Mark 15.34 = JW 6.308-9)



20 – Both utter a lament for themselves immediately before they die. (Mark 15.34 = JW 6.309)



21 – Both die with a loud cry. (Mark 15.37 = JW 6.309)



The odds of these coincidences arising by chance is quite small to say the least, so it appears Mark used this Jesus as a model for his own to serve some particular literary or theological purpose. In any case, we can see that Mark is writing fiction here, through and through.




2) positive reasons, although not needed, are right there, you just ignore them. The story is a trending theology/mythology happening in Greek occupied nations. Paul even says the first Christians are found in Antioch. History shows this was the center of Hellenism and it's the "cradle of Christianity". The name "Christian" is from Antioch.

 

[joelr]

But the bed rock facts from the OP don’t depend on the gospels being historically reliable.

Those facts only say a man was killed and folklore started. They are not "bedrock". Historians are beginning now to question that these minimal facts are bedrock. At least 30 sitting professors are finding mythicism to be reasonable.





"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"


They don't have a timeline and all religions start like this. People probably had the same beliefs in all mystery religions about each savior.



"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"


This is incorrect. No one knows if Paul was adding flare to his story and he felt justified because he believed this story was true. He already bought Judaism, which is a myth, so he bought into the trending updates? It's a claim, same as Muhammad speaking to Gabrielle or Joe Smith getting updates from Moroni.




If you don't think all the other savior demigods had similar starts, look at Epictetus's thoughts on God. Except it's Zeus, not Yahweh.




4.2. Kinship with god

Epictetus is also very concerned to situate the rationality of the human being within a maximally rational universe. His confidence in the fundamental orderliness of all things is expressed in frequent references to Zeus or “the god” as the designer and administrator of the universe. There seems to be no question of competition with any other deities or powers. Epictetus does sometimes speak, conventionally for a Greek, of “gods” in the plural, but Zeus remains unquestionably supreme: he enjoys having some company, just as we do (3.13.4), but does not require assistance and cannot be opposed.



Immanent rather than transcendent, Zeus inheres in, and may indeed be identified with, the natural order. As such he is in theory fully accessible to human comprehension in the same way as all objects and events are accessible to our comprehension. With effort, rational beings can come to understand Zeus as a person, a rational being with thoughts and intentions like ours. That recognition inspires awe and gratitude, a “hymn of praise” that it is our duty to offer in each occasion of life (1.16.19).

God is the creator of humankind as of all else, and his attitude toward us is one of complete benevolence. It is by his gift that we are rational beings, and our rational nature qualifies us as his kindred. More: our minds are actually fragments of Zeus’s mind, “parts and offshoots of his own being” (1.14.6, 2.8.10–12). When we make choices on our own account, we exercise the very same power as governs the universe. Hence it can be said that Zeus has ceded to us a portion of his governance (1.1.12).

 

[Brian2]

But the reason that it seems to confirm ... to you flows entirely from your faith in Acts, despite (a) it being clearly a piece of apologetics, and (b) ...

According to Church tradition dating from the 2nd century, the author was Luke, named as a companion of the apostle Paul in three of the letters attributed to Paul himself; this view is still sometimes advanced, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters."[10] (An example can be seen by comparing Acts's accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1–31, 22:6–21, and 26:9–23) with Paul's own statement that he remained unknown to Christians in Judea after that event (Galatians 1:17–24).)[11] The author "is an admirer of Paul, but does not share Paul's own view of himself as an apostle; his own theology is considerably different from Paul's on key points and does not represent Paul's own views accurately."[12] He was educated, a man of means, probably urban, and someone who respected manual work, although not a worker himself; this is significant, because more high-brow writers of the time looked down on the artisans and small business people who made up the early church of Paul and were presumably Luke's audience.[13]​

​

The earliest possible date for Luke-Acts is around 62 AD, the time of Paul's imprisonment in Rome,[14] but most scholars date the work to 80–90 AD on the grounds that it uses Mark as a source, looks back on the destruction of Jerusalem, and does not show any awareness of the letters of Paul (which began circulating late in the first century); if it does show awareness of the Pauline epistles, and also of the work of the Jewish historian Josephus, as some believe, then a date in the early 2nd century is possible.[5][15][16] [source]​

I'm sure you can understand why the claim has little value to those who lack unflinching faith in its author.

Those who accept the opinions of modern sceptical historians more than the text and church history, see little value in any part of scripture.

 

[leroy]

"Almost equally good for both sides?" Again, you assume a 50-50, then say if you've gone that far, it may as well be 99.9 percent...

Yes I assumed a 50% 50% that is part of my point

The point that I made is that p
From the point of view of someone who is 50% the resurrection is the best explanation for the facts in the op

An agnostic...and thank you I know several irl, as well as those self-described here, who would and are arguing with your 'agnostics would grant a 50-50 chance...'

Ok , how should I call someone who is 50%

.

Stories that are not independently attested, other than in the New Testament texts, and in other early Christian writings.

And what else do you expect to have?

As an agnostic, I am still awaiting some evidence that is not dependent on acceptance of the Gospels as absolute truth. But so far, that is all you've offered.

Fine, because nobody is asking you to accept the gospels as absolute truth.

 

[leroy]

Nope. Not even close.

Why not?