Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[leroy]

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

Ohhh because we have good positive reasons to conclude that the chances of winning the lottery are less that 50% (assuming a typical lottery)

Do you have a good positive argument against the existence of a god? Do you have an argument that shows that his existence is less probable than his non existence?

.

 

[joelr]

I don’t see that as a big of a deal, Paul simply considered Jesus´s teachings more important to share than his personal life…………. I see that as evidence that everybody knew who Jesus was and there was no need to repeat what everybody knew.

Yet no evidence in any historical records or writings exist until Mark writes what is definitely fiction in 70 AD?

Also that is THE apologetic to that. DO you actually believe it? It does not make sense. No. The Epistles were supposed to strengthen belief, you actually don't think facts about Jesus over random sightings were SUPER IMPORTANT?? The crucifixion and political issues, not mentioned.
Also, A MINISTRY ISN'T PERSONAL LIFE???? You get so caught up with these apologetics you are forgetting basic logic.
And yes people want to know where he is, when, what town, yeah, that is important.
Simple fact is he didn't have the information to give. It hadn't been invented yet.

If I where the mayor of your city, would your car about my personal life? Or would you care about my political and economic views?

Yes we always care about the personal with political figures. Now if one was killed????? Yeah, that would be pretty important. HUGE! Roman crucifixion? HUGE.

The few verifiable historical facts that Paul mentions are true, Jesus had a brother name James,

HE NEVER makes clear if he is making a distinction calling James a non-apostolic brother by just calling him "brother of the Lord". This fictive kinship was a major part of Hellenistic religion and Christianity. The word Paul uses is NOT the word for biological brother. He uses that word for "brother in the Lord" in other places.

Jesus had a disciple named Peter, a disciple named John he was crucified, etc…… so under that basis I would conclude that he was not making things up. Nor copying from ancient myths

Why is this so hard?
Copying from Hellenism has nothing to do with names of disciples? Hellenism is where savior demigods die/rise and bring salvation in the form of afterlife entry for souls of members.

These names were not verified? They are in the Gospels, which copied from Mark, who wrote a work of fiction.

NOw before Paul there was a a group who bought into these new Jewish/Greek myths about a Jewish savior. So there may have been a Peter and John who were higher level, people who were saying "yes, Jesus came to me also and said......" and people were like "wow, he came to you! What did he say?" And they were considered the disciples.

Being crucified is from Mark. MArk is not history, it's the most fictive work. you could ever find that still takes place on Earth. Everything is a parable or an event nested in a sequence where it repeats in an ordered sequence or directly from the OT stories, re-written to be a more modern version. But the words said are almost identical and the plot points are the same.

Paul was not making up that there was a group who believed this new story.

The people who encountered Joe Smith and his band of new Mormons were also not making up that they met the guy who saw an angel.
The story just isn't true.
Likewise Jesus is not a demigod savior because all of those are not real things, they are folklore.

We don’t have a single ancient text that refers to Jesus as a celestial person, we have plenty of roman and Jewish historians writing about Christians, and nobody mentioned that Jesus was just a celestial being.

We do have that.
2 Peter 1:16-21
For we did not follow cleverly devised stories or myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty [His grandeur, His authority, His sovereignty].

This is responding to people saying it's a myth and making up a false sighting to contradict the claim.


A version of Ascension of Isaiah, Isaiah goes to one of the celestial realms and sees Jesus. Jesus goes to the 3rd level (where Satan lives) and is killed and resurrects. Later he flies down to Earth to tell his story.



Philo in BC writes about Jewish angelology, Gods favorite arc-angel, firstborn, agent of creation, "The East" , Anatole, celestial high priest and more.
Now some apologists took contention with the part about being called Jesus, but it's a translation that leads to Joshua and Carrier answers to those questions in several interviews:

And if I understand your view correctly, “celestial Jesus” was not supposed to be a secret, so why didn’t Christianity flourished as a religion that worships a celestial Jesus?

Not my views. It's part of mythicism. Best odds on that are 3 to 1 in favor. The 2nd century was full of strange Gnostic beliefs about Jesus for starters.
These various interpretations were called heresies by the leaders of the proto-orthodox church, but many were very popular and had large followings. Part of the unifying trend in proto-orthodoxy was an increasingly harsh anti-Judaism and rejection of Judaizers. Some of the major movements were:

• Gnosticism – second to fourth centuries – reliance on revealed knowledge from an unknowable God, a distinct divinity from the Demiurge who created and oversees the material world. The Gnostics claimed to have received secret teachings (gnosis) from Jesus via other apostles which were not publicly known, or in the case of Valentinius from Paul the Apostle. Gnosticism is predicated on the existence of such hidden knowledge, but brief references to private teachings of Jesus have also survived in the canonic scripture (Mark 4:11) as did warning by the Christ that there would be false prophets or false teachers. Irenaeus' opponents also claimed that the wellsprings of divine inspiration were not dried up, which is the doctrine of continuing revelation.[citation needed]
• Marcionism – second century – the God of Jesus was a different God from the God of the Old Testament.
• Montanism – second century – a pentecostal movement initiated by Montanus and his female disciples, featuring prophetic continuing revelations from the Holy Spirit.
• Adoptionism – second century – Jesus was not born the Son of God, but was adopted at his baptism, resurrection or ascension.
• Docetism – second to third century – Jesus was pure spirit and his physical form an illusion.
• Sabellianism – third century – the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three modes of the one God and not the three separate persons of the Trinity.
• Arianism – third to fourth century – Jesus, while not merely mortal, was not eternally divine and was of some lesser status than God the Father.[note 1]

In the middle of the second century, the Christian communities of Rome, for example, were divided between followers of Marcion, Montanism, and the gnostic teachings of Valentinus.


The modern beliefs and canon did not form until the end of the 2nd century. We see from letters of Bishop Irenaeus who did not have 4 Gospels yet or have the names but wanted a power structure with bishops, priests, no women teachers and only a certain bloodline can read, interpret and teach scripture.
You can read a big sampling of them in Elaine Pagels The Gnostic Gospels.

Way earlier it's clear there was a push for some type of orthadoxy that was a literalist interpretation because (many reasons) we see the church produce the forged Epistles and have Paul conveniently have Jesus give the correct creeds and so on.
(yeah they lied as did many other Church Fathers and produce false documents) When the literalist ideas began is another topic, it did not start right away. When a canon was developed and scripture became more important to settle disputes everything had to become literal, including stories which were really more metaphorical. You cannot have Gnostic views or a celestial Jesus. It's a giveaway that it isn't real.

Also Jesus may be a euhemrerized deity. One that started out as a celestial being but was later set in a specific place and time with a family and so on. This happened often.


If you are interested:

Euhemerization Means Doing What Euhemerus Did • Richard Carrier Blogs

Just a quickie today. Several people have asked this question in one form or another: I’ve read a number of people who claim that your use of the term “euhemerization” is incorrect. These typically give definitions along the lines of the following in Wikipedia: “Euhemerism is an approach to the...

www.richardcarrier.info

Brief Note on Euhemerization • Richard Carrier Blogs

This is just a brief note for those interested in my thoughts on Tim Widowfield’s article “What Is Euhemerism?” about what he thinks are confusions regarding the terminology of “Euhemerization.” For the context, see my article “Euhemerization Means Doing What Euhemerus Did.” Widowfield is...

www.richardcarrier.info

 

[joelr]

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)

They didn't invent it, they bought into it. We don't know if they had a chance to recant? They may have and still been killed?
Who are you talking about? Paul was arrested for something else.
People started telling stories about a Jewish version of a popular religious theme, going around in many nations, and they were primed to believe that their version was actually the real version since they already thought they were in the true religion.

Remember, Justin Martyr justified it by saying Satan made up all the Greek deities to fool Christians so they would think Jesus was just a copy-cat myth. He basically ADMITS Jesus is a copy-cat myth by saying this.


Anyone who died in the Gospels died in a story that looks extremely like fiction. In so many ways. More than Tolkien. Even Tolkien doesn't use the amount of jury-rigging events and parables and re-writes. It's a lot like Matrix 1, re-writes of a savior being with elements of many other stories and religious and philosophical ideas. Neo even dies and resurrects from the power of personal love. Mark is on that level. Matrix takes place in NY. Is it history?

So they died after buying into a new version of a religion they were already in. They would have died for the religion anyways? In Judaism religious martyrs were already a huge thing. Religious people still willingly die for their religion but it was already a good way to die. They were to choose death over forced religion in Judaism. You talk about it like it was a new concept and proves Jesus must be real? Not true, you die if forced to convert outside Judaism.

"and Jews are obligated to avoid it according to Halakha (Jewish religious law). There are instances, such as when they are faced with forced conversion to another religion, when Jews should choose martyrdom and sacrifice their lives rather than commit a chillul Hashem which desecrates the honor of God. Martyrdom in Judaism is thus driven by both the desire to Sanctify God's Name concurrently and the wish to avoid the Desecration of God's Name.[2]"

Martyrdom in Judaism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Aupmanyav]

Granted, but it is good evidence that he was not lying, he didn't made it up.

How do you know that? He was a sales man. He was selling his brand of Christianity. A little lying is OK for a good cause.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

That you might reject "skeptical historians" in favor of unskeptical apologists should shock no one. Still, I'm rather surprised that you would stoop to a cheap ad hominem. Would you truly paint someone like Udo Schnelle as a dismissive skeptical historian whose input is unworthy of respect?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

I did answer your question.
You said: "So in your view Paul had a hallucination

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


See how my question is in response to your claim about 500 HUNDRED?
Why won't you answer it? It seems pretty relevant to your argument, wouldn't you say?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Who has ever said "Naturalism win because I say so?"
Oh, nobody.

I think it's pretty obvious why you want to render the Elvis thing irrelevant.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

Isn't that a reasonable approach for an empiricist? Nothing should be considered history because it is described in scripture. We need empirical corroboration before belief, and by academic standards for evaluating evidence as in science and law.

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 kind of comment undermines your credibility further. I mentioned ethos to you elsewhere - how a speaker or writer is perceived by his target audience, such as is he competent, is he knowledgeable, does he seem to have a hidden agenda, and the like. I'm an agnostic atheist. I avoid nothing except looking at orphan links, especially videos. I also won't provide evidence for creationists any more. And I won't ask a poster the same question more than twice before I tell him my best guess and move on if he doesn't chime in then. But there is no argument I walk away from.

Also, there is no burden of proof with somebody unprepared to recognize when an argument is sound or not and is willing to be convinced by a compelling argument, because "proving" beyond reasonable doubt is impossible without a student of that skill and temperament.

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?

An agnostic who believes that the arguments are more less equally good for both sides. I'm a different kind of agnostic. Most of us are.

All I am saying (and hoping that you acknowledge) is that from 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,)

I can stipulate to that. If one changes his belief set, his conclusions about what evidence means changes. ne can hold enough beliefs to make resurrection likely or more likely if those beliefs were correct. But I don't consider the point worth making and don't know why you did. You're defending the belief by believers who believe gods that can and do resurrect exist, not arguing why others who don't should agree with them.

because we have good positive reasons to conclude that the chances of winning the lottery are less that 50% (assuming a typical lottery) Do you have a good positive argument against the existence of a god? Do you have an argument that shows that his existence is less probable than his non existence?

He doesn't need an argument against the existence of god or for or against any guesses on likelihood. He has an argument for his atheism - insufficient evidence to support theism. You have no evidenced argument that the chance of a god existing is 50/50.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Again semantics.

Yes, word usage involves 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?)

I responded to this already.

A person who doesn't believe in god(s) is an atheist. So if someone thinks "the evidence for both sides is more less equally good" and doesn't believe in a god, they're an atheist.
A person who does believe in god is a theist. So if someone thinks "the evidence for both sides is more less equally good" and believes in god(s), that person is a theist.
When we're talking about a/theism we are talking about belief.

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.

Depends on which god one concludes is "realistically possible" doesn't it? A Hindu isn't going to jump to conclusions from Christian literature now are they?

It appears that what you are saying is here is basically just "for people who already believe in magical things, the existence of magical things is "realistically possible." Well, big deal? So what?

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.

Well, as I have explained several times, that is not me. I don't believe in god(s), because I've never seen good evidence that convinces me of god's existence. That is NOT the same thing as saying "no god(s) exists." I'm open to any evidence for anything. I've just never seen it. That's why I don't believe in this stuff. You've not presented anything here that I find very convincing.

50% is just the default position.

It isn't. You're not just saying "there is a god" versus "there is not a god." You are claiming the existence of a very, very specific god and very, very specific events. This is Pascal's Wager, not actual math.

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

We have way more than 2 options though.

 

[Brian2]

That you might reject "skeptical historians" in favor of unskeptical apologists should shock no one. Still, I'm rather surprised that you would stoop to a cheap ad hominem. Would you truly paint someone like Udo Schnelle as a dismissive skeptical historian whose input is unworthy of respect?

OK I am wrong in what I said and I apologise for any insult. I should not say that my way of understanding the scriptures is the only way that is worthwhile. I do have the opinion that modern scholarship on the Bible has been led astray however and that those who follow it rather than a faith in God's words in the text, have also been led astray.
I am not a big reader of theology and do not know enough about Udo Schnelle to make any comment outside what I have said already.

 

[Brian2]

Isn't that a reasonable approach for an empiricist? Nothing should be considered history because it is described in scripture. We need empirical corroboration before belief, and by academic standards for evaluating evidence as in science and law.

Many Christians and no doubt Jews who have faith seem to have put some poison into their faith when they use skeptical ideas in their approach to the Bible.
Belief without first proving it to be true first has a place in all our lives and does not mean that people are not using their brains.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why not?

because of all of the ways that your argument failed. Again. What else is new?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ohhh because we have good positive reasons to conclude that the chances of winning the lottery are less that 50% (assuming a typical lottery)

Do you have a good positive argument against the existence of a god? Do you have an argument that shows that his existence is less probable than his non existence?

.

Exactly. Thank you very much. The same argument applies to your claims.

As to your second question, it appears to be rather contradictory. What do you mean by a "good positive argument against"? That appears to be doing a self contradicting request. Can you try to word that a bit more clearly?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Many Christians and no doubt Jews who have faith seem to have put some poison into their faith when they use skeptical ideas in their approach to the Bible.
Belief without first proving it to be true first has a place in all our lives and does not mean that people are not using their brains.

It sounds like you're saying people should just shut up and believe what the Bible says, and ignore all evidence that contradicts that belief. And then claimed that there is a place for baseless beliefs in our lives?

 

[Subduction Zone]

***edited***

Very nice. If one wants an extreme TLDR the argument is at its heart a circular argument where they try to sneak in the existence of not only a god, but the Christian God. If I get to assume that God is real, then God is real.

 

[Brian2]

It sounds like you're saying people should just shut up and believe what the Bible says, and ignore all evidence that contradicts that belief. And then claimed that there is a place for baseless beliefs in our lives?

Oh gosh, I did not want it to sound like that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oh gosh, I did not want it to sound like that.

That's a relief.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Belief without first proving it to be true first has a place in all our lives and does not mean that people are not using their brains.

I won't do that. Theories OK if they can stand scrutiny to that level, but not belief.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

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



Ok , how should I call someone who is 50%


And what else do you expect to have?

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

But I have been asked to offer comments on an argument for the historicity of three specific events from the Bible, which I have been doing.

In order to do so, I have responded to your repeated groundless assertion that if someone doesn't know whether or not X is the case, they should assume at least a 50 percent probability. Personally, I am unfamiliar with any system of logic that would allow that, with the sole exception of Bayesian analysis, for which that initial assumption would then have to be subject to repeated observations with subsequent adjustments to that initial estimate. Are you using Bayesian statistics here? Why not specify that?

As a social scientist, I had to learn application of what is called Null Hypothesis Testing, a model of logical analysis that begins with "There is NO evidence of X"(Null Hypothesis) and an Alternative Hypothesis ('There IS evidence of X'). One has to be careful to define exactly what acceptable evidence would be, how it would be measured and verified. One would look at the evidence to determine how much, if any, of the evidence supports the proposition. The level is usually determined based on the kind and volume of data before one collects the data and analyzes it.

If there isn't enough data supporting X, then we "fail to reject" the Null hypothesis; if there is sufficient evidence supporting X in the data, we "reject the Null"

The three supposed 'bedrock' facts are all NOT independently reported...all stem back to the same source and the tradition that grew up around that source, which does not give much room for statistical treatment.

You and others are then arguing BEYOND those historical "bedrock" items, but still relying entirely on the same source (NT) and associated traditions to assert conclusions that are not grounded in the bedrock items themselves.

Null hypothesis for each of the 'bedrock' data:

1) There is NO EVIDENCE that Jesus was killed by crucifixion under Pilate
2. There is NO EVIDENCE that 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. There is NO EVIDENCE that 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

Is there evidence? Certainly: the New Testament and the Christian traditions that have grown up around that.

But what is that evidence? Well, frankly, it's stories. Oral testimony. Of individuals who cannot now be cross examined. And in a tradition that has a vested interest in presenting those stories, those testimonies, in a certain way. That makes is weak evidence at best, but we can, at least provisionally, Reject the Null. But we still have to recognize that a single source and supporting tradition is very weak. In reality, depending on exactly how we set up the measures of this data, it may actually fall below the threshold for acceptance, in which case we'd have to REJECT the Null...

Another Null hypothesis:

There is NO EVIDENCE of a resurrection of Jesus following his execution.

This is an entirely separate hypothesis from the reputed experiences of disciples and Paul. It is NOT part of the three "Bedrock" events. So, do we find any evidence to support this hypothesis? Sure. It's the exact same single weak source and tradition that leads to even a provisional acceptance of the so-called "bedrock" events.

Now the, you keep asserting that there are some who would plug an automatic 50 percent probability of the resurrection into whatever analysis. Please list them, or provide citations or links. So we can look in some detail at the underlying logic of making this assumption.

 

[leroy]

I can stipulate to that. If one changes his belief set, his conclusions about what evidence means changes. ne can hold enough beliefs to make resurrection likely or more likely if those beliefs were correct. But I don't consider the point worth making and don't know why you did. You're defending the belief by believers who believe gods that can and do resurrect exist, not arguing why others who don't should agree with them.

all I am saying is that Liconas argument (from the op) is good enough to justify the resurection as a probable event, unless you afirm that the existance of god is impossible (or very unlikelly)

He doesn't need an argument against the existence of god or for or against any guesses on likelihood. He has an argument for his atheism - insufficient evidence to support theism. You have no evidenced argument that the chance of a god existing is 50/50.

I think there is evidence for a god………… but even without any evidence it doest follow that the existence of god is less probable than 50%.

There is no evidence for intelligent life in other planets, but from that fact it doesn’t follow that there is no intelligent life in other planets, nor that the probability is less than 50%, nor that that “no aliens” should be the default position.

If you want to move the wager in favor of “atheism” you need an argument that justifies such a movement in the wager