Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[Jayhawker Soule]

I am not saying Licona is right. I read his book and am unsure if his explanation is the most plausible one.

Apparently he claims that Paul claims a visitation from a dead guy, and you're asking us if that constitutes plausible evidence for a resurrection.

What do you think?

 

[Left Coast]

Since you and danieldmol are using the same objections I'll refer you to the first paragraph in my response to his previous post.

I wonder if you two have any other qualms with Licona's case or is this the sole percieved flaw in it?

You said:

"Well, either way on what grounds can you say that it's unlikely that God wished to raise Jesus from the dead? It's true that God doesn't wish to raise most people but then again the case of Jesus doesn't fall in line with most people as the context of his life is religiously charged and his death offered a chance for divine vindication. In such a situation, it becomes far morely likely that God would wish to raise Jesus if his claims were true."

This is classic special pleading.

I'll also note that it requires more assumptions than the three original facts that were all that was originally claimed necessary to make the case here. We now have to assume there's a God and that this God somehow specially intervened in Jesus' life in a way that violates his pattern of behavior (or rather, lack of observable behavior) with every other person.

In other words...it's highly implausible.

 

[Apologes]

I told you. Post death hallucinations are far more plausible. They are frequent enough so that peer reviewed studies have been done on them:

The phenomenology and impact of hallucinations concerning the deceased - PMC

People who have suffered the loss of a loved one may subsequently report sensory experiences of the deceased (termed ‘after-death communications’, or ADCs). Such encounters are common and can be a source of comfort to the bereaved. Nevertheless, ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

" These often occurred over many years, and at the time of the interviews 106 people (36.1% of the sample) were still having them. The form of encounter varied, most commonly taking the form of a ‘sense of presence’ of the deceased (reported in 39.2% of cases), but also including visual (14.0%), auditory (13.3%) and tactile (2.7%) experiences. A majority of those reporting encounters with their deceased spouse regarded them as helpful in their recovery from loss, and Rees concluded that these hallucinations were normal and beneficial accompaniments of widowhood."

How many cases of resurrection do you know of? Especially after a very efficient state execution. They badly lose the "plausibility" argument. Post death hallucinations are not rare.

As to what people believed some time after Jesus's death, so what? You are probably too young to remember the death of Elvis. You may not have not even been born when that happened. After he died there were countless Elvis sightings. People saw him talked to him and touched him. Often he was seen working in the kitchens of fast food joints. A whole series of jokes arose because of that.

I am not denying that Jesus existed, but his resurrection looks to be pure legend.

Well, hallucinations would indeed be a good explanation if we were talking about a few isolated cases but the second fact of the historical bedrock is that some of these experiences were group experiences. Now group hallucinations are a thing very few have voiced their support for as they go against the basic characteristic of a hallucination which is that its an internal experience unique to the individual. To have groups of people reporting the same thing and to say that is a hallucination would go against what is known about hallucinations and thus fails the plausibility criteria.

 

[Apologes]

Apparently he claims that Paul claims a visitation from a dead guy, and you're asking us if that constitutes plausible evidence for a resurrection.

What do you think?

I think a fitting response for this would be to say that I cannot refute a incredulous stare.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, hallucinations would indeed be a good explanation if we were talking about a few isolated cases but the second fact of the historical bedrock is that some of these experiences were group experiences.

Give us evidence fore one.

 

[Apologes]

No, you do not get to assume that only Jesus was resurrected. Your argument had the "plausibility" clause. It is simply not plausible. To claim plausible you need other examples.

I defined what is meant by plausibility here: is the hypotheis implied or consistent by known facts? I see how you could make an argument that the resurrection cannot be shown to be plausible but I don't find it convincing that there are any known facts that make it implausible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, hallucinations would indeed be a good explanation if we were talking about a few isolated cases but the second fact of the historical bedrock is that some of these experiences were group experiences. Now group hallucinations are a thing very few have voiced their support for as they go against the basic characteristic of a hallucination which is that its an internal experience unique to the individual. To have groups of people reporting the same thing and to say that is a hallucination would go against what is known about hallucinations and thus fails the plausibility criteria.

No, you simply do not know that. There is not one whit of reliable evidence for that claim. Are you talking about Paul's "I do have a girlfriend? She lives in Canada. She is really haht!" claim?

You are using one logical fallacy after another. Now there is nothing wrong with having a belief. But trying to claim that it is rational puts a burden of proof upon you and to date all apologist arguments have failed rather badly.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think a fitting response for this would be to say that I cannot refute a incredulous stare.

Which is a shame, since you seem to do so well inviting them.

I'll leave you to it ...

 

[Subduction Zone]

I defined what is meant by plausibility here: is the hypotheis implied or consistent by known facts? I see how you could make an argument that the resurrection cannot be shown to be plausible but I don't find it convincing that there are any known facts that make it implausible.

Oh nice. Then the answer is again no. Clearly it is not plausible.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

"- Less ad hoc - does the hypothesis go beyond what is known and makes unevidenced assumptions"

it seems to me that 'God did it' is much more ad hoc than any other hypothesis...it clearly goes beyond what is known (but not what is believed) and makes many unevidenced assumptions...in fact, can be stretched to cover any facts at all deemed needed to make the argument 'plausible'

I think what is definitely missing from his criteria is falsifiability...the assertion that 'God did it' is simply not testable...it can only be accepted on faith.

 

[Apologes]

You said:

"Well, either way on what grounds can you say that it's unlikely that God wished to raise Jesus from the dead? It's true that God doesn't wish to raise most people but then again the case of Jesus doesn't fall in line with most people as the context of his life is religiously charged and his death offered a chance for divine vindication. In such a situation, it becomes far morely likely that God would wish to raise Jesus if his claims were true."

This is classic special pleading.

I'll also note that it requires more assumptions than the three original facts that were all that was originally claimed necessary to make the case here. We now have to assume there's a God and that this God somehow specially intervened in Jesus' life in a way that violates his pattern of behavior (or rather, lack of observable nehavior) with every other person.

In other words...it's highly implausible.

I don't see how this is special pleading. I think it fits with your earlier illustration of a cup magically appearing. 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?

Licona's book is very long, 600 pages actually, and what I laid out in the OP was just partial information to get the discussion rolling so that those who read or are familiar with his material could chime in. If you're not one of them no worries, the three facts are the historical bedrock pertaining to the fate of Jesus. What I just said there were separate facts known as the historical bedrock perfaining to the life of Jesus. The bedrock includes facts like Jesus being a miracle worker and an exorcist. This isn't really an assumption.

As for assuming the existence of God I already explained that in the post I referred you to but I can do so again if you wish. Regarding God intervening, Licona actually allows for any supernatural cause to be behind the resurrection but then goes on to argue from the context of Jesus' life that it was God. It can be a bit confusing but I can explain further or refer you to specific pages of the book where he goes into this if you wish.

 

[danieldemol]

Well, either way on what grounds can you say that it's unlikely that God wished to raise Jesus from the dead? It's true that God doesn't wish to raise most people but then again the case of Jesus doesn't fall in line with most people as the context of his life is religiously charged and his death offered a chance for divine vindication. In such a situation, it becomes far morely likely that God would wish to raise Jesus if his claims were true.

It is correct that according to the (in my view ridiculous) story Jesus death offers the chance for divine vindication, but it is Jesus's death which does that, *not* Jesus resurrection.

Licona actually brackets the question of God's existence to the scholar's "horizon" and doesn't just dismiss either naturalism or supernaturalism. Licona actually argues for the existence of God based on the resurrection argument being correct.

In other words you have to assume the conclusion to get to the existence of God, but even that fails since we can't rule out unknown natural causes of a "resurrection".

That Jesus was the only one raised was granted for the sake of the argument. Keep in mind also that we're dealing here with an argument that restricts itself to the very minimum of facts known as the historical bedrock. It doesn't presume the innerancy of the gospels.

But if the gospels are not innerant then its authors may have been composed of liars, delusional, gullible or any mixture of the three, which gives us more than adequate cause to doubt a claim as extraordinary to the non-indoctrinated as the resurrection is in my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

The bedrock includes facts like Jesus being a miracle worker and an exorcist.

Wow, if you are calling those part of a historical bedrock of facts you are indeed indoctrinated in my view.

 

[Apologes]

It is correct that according to the (in my view ridiculous) story Jesus death offers the chance for divine vindication, but it is Jesus's death which does that, *not* Jesus resurrection.

In other words you have to assume the conclusion to get to the existence of God, but even that fails since we can't rule out unknown natural causes of a "resurrection".

But if the gospels are not innerant then its authors may have been composed of liars, delusional, gullible or any mixture of the three, which gives us more than adequate cause to doubt a claim as extraordinary to the non-indoctrinated as the resurrection is in my opinion.

I don't understand the significance of your first paragraph. You concede that his death offers a context for vindication but insist the resurrection does not. At face value I would agree that the resurrection is not the context of vindication the means of vindication in that context.

Interestingly, Licona does exactly that as he devotes dozens of pages to considering naturalistic explanations before even looking at the resurrection as an explanation. You might be interested in checking that out.

It should be noted that the gospels are neither our earliest nor our best sources for the resurrection. That would be Paul and the traditions quoted in his letters. As far as the gospels go, we can treat them like any other ancient biographies. Yes they may contain legends or embellishments but they also contain historical information.

 

[Left Coast]

I don't see how this is special pleading. I think it fits with your earlier illustration of a cup magically appearing. 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?

I would say it changes nothing, correct. How many magicians do you know who actually do magic, rather than illusions, mind tricks, etc?

Licona's book is very long, 600 pages actually, and what I laid out in the OP was just partial information to get the discussion rolling so that those who read or are familiar with his material could chime in. If you're not one of them no worries, the three facts are the historical bedrock pertaining to the fate of Jesus. What I just said there were separate facts known as the historical bedrock perfaining to the life of Jesus. The bedrock includes facts like Jesus being a miracle worker and an exorcist. This isn't really an assumption.

Oh my. Yes, Jesus having done miracles is very much an assumption. What evidence do you have for that?

As for assuming the existence of God I already explained that in the post I referred you to but I can do so again if you wish.

If you can explain the resurrection without appealing to God, by all means do so. If you can't, then we agree this is another assumption that must be made for your hypothesis to work.

Regarding God intervening, Licona actually allows for any supernatural cause to be behind the resurrection but then goes on to argue from the context of Jesus' life that it was God. It can be a bit confusing but I can explain further or refer you to specific pages of the book where he goes into this if you wish.

It's not super helpful for this conversation to say, "Go read the book." If you want to have a conversation here, with me, you'll have to summarize your own points.

Why should we accept that anything supernatural caused the 3 facts? What plausible supernatural explanation is there? (Again, remember how we assess that something is plausible.)

 

[Apologes]

Wow, if you are calling those part of a historical bedrock of facts you are indeed indoctrinated in my view.

I'm assuming your incredulity is caused by a misunderstanding that I said Jesus actually performed miraculous fests. When historians say someone was a miracle worker and an exorcist they refer to what he was considered to be by his peers and historical sources. It doesn't mean he actually did anything supernatural. Much like how we can say some tribes had shamans without accepting shamanism as a metaphysical reality. Hence why this isn't just me (or the "indoctrinated") saying that but scholars of all beliefs including atheists.

 

[Apologes]

I would say it changes nothing, correct. How many magicians do you know who actually do magic, rather than illusions, mind tricks, etc?



Oh my. Yes, Jesus having done miracles is very much an assumption. What evidence do you have for that?



If you can explain the resurrection without appealing to God, by all means do so. If you can't, then we agree this is another assumption that must be made for your hypothesis to work.



It's not super helpful for this conversation to say, "Go read the book." If you want to have a conversation here, with me, you'll have to summarize your own points.

Why should we accept that anything supernatural caused the 3 facts? What plausible supernatural explanation is there? (Again, remember how we assess that something is plausible.)

Well, you don't need to read it but the point of this thread was for me to hear out people who are at the very least familiar with the argument presented. From the posts I've seen so far none of you seem to have engaged with the topic at any serious length. Mind you, I'm not dismissing you or the others, I'm grateful for the participation as your comments may lead me to new considerations but it should be clear to you that the discussion will be much more fruitful if you know what the argument I'm talking about actually is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't see how this is special pleading. I think it fits with your earlier illustration of a cup magically appearing. 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?

You give far too much credibility to the Gospels. They are not history In fact they have clear historical errors in them. Both Nativity myths fail badly and worse yet they contradict each other. Your case was special pleading because you assumed that all sorts of unsupported myths are true. You do not get to do that if you want to make a rational argument.

Licona's book is very long, 600 pages actually, and what I laid out in the OP was just partial information to get the discussion rolling so that those who read or are familiar with his material could chime in. If you're not one of them no worries, the three facts are the historical bedrock pertaining to the fate of Jesus. What I just said there were separate facts known as the historical bedrock perfaining to the life of Jesus. The bedrock includes facts like Jesus being a miracle worker and an exorcist. This isn't really an assumption.

Length is not necessarily a good thing. Why is it so long? The actual evidence for Jesus is rather sparse. It sounds as if it is full of pointless handwaving. And none of your "bedrock facts" are facts. They are all unsupported claims. The Bible is one source. Because early Christians got rid of the many other sources, either through neglect or on purpose, makes the Bible one source. If one did not toe the Christian line of the fourth century your work was eliminated. The more you reveal what is in the book the worse that you make your case appear to be.

As for assuming the existence of God I already explained that in the post I referred you to but I can do so again if you wish. Regarding God intervening, Licona actually allows for any supernatural cause to be behind the resurrection but then goes on to argue from the context of Jesus' life that it was God. It can be a bit confusing but I can explain further or refer you to specific pages of the book where he goes into this if you wish.

It is worse than simply assuming that God exists. You assumed that the Christian God exists. There are countless different God. Assuming any God is an error, but assuming the Christian God is simply circular reasoning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm assuming your incredulity is caused by a misunderstanding that I said Jesus actually performed miraculous fests. When historians say someone was a miracle worker and an exorcist they refer to what he was considered to be by his peers and historical sources. It doesn't mean he actually did anything supernatural. Much like how we can say some tribes had shamans without accepting shamanism as a metaphysical reality. Hence why this isn't just me (or the "indoctrinated") saying that but scholars of all beliefs including atheists.

Historians do not make those claims. At least none that I know of.

George Washington miraculously cured his dog's angina. Nope, no historian says that.

 

[danieldemol]

I don't understand the significance of your first paragraph. You concede that his death offers a context for vindication but insist the resurrection does not. At face value I would agree that the resurrection is not the context of vindication the means of vindication in that context.

You claimed that if the story of Jesus dying for our sins were true it gave an increase to the probability of God wanting to resurrect Jesus, I'm asking how so if the resurrection is irrelevant to the claim of Jesus dying for our sins being true. Jesus could have died for our sins and not been resurrected for example.

Interestingly, Licona does exactly that as he devotes dozens of pages to considering naturalistic explanations before even looking at the resurrection as an explanation. You might be interested in checking that out.

He consults such explanations as are known to him no doubt, but aside from my doubt that he does anything than wishfully think his way through them (I haven't read his book but can see the wishful thinking in your posts already), but how does he rule out an *unknown* natural explanation as less plausible than a God not positively known to exist?

It should be noted that the gospels are neither our earliest nor our best sources for the resurrection. That would be Paul and the traditions quoted in his letters. As far as the gospels go, we can treat them like any other ancient biographies. Yes they may contain legends or embellishments but they also contain historical information.

So your best earliest source for the resurrection is an individual who never physically met the resurrected Jesus and whose stories may also contain legend or embellishments surrounding a historical kernel of information?