Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[leroy]

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...

The bed rock facts are supported by multiple independent sources, that is the main reason for why most historians accept these bed rock facts

 

[leroy]

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.

No, all I am saying that the existence of a god (any god) is “realistically possible”……….. with realistically possible I simply mean that it is not impossible nor very unlikely)

You don’t seem to disagree, so can we move on, to the next topic?

For the sake of this thread, I will assume that there is no evidence for a god.

Still form the fact that there is no evidence for a god, it doesn’t follow that he doesn’t exist nor that “no god” is the default position, nor the most reasonable position.

For example I am not aware of any evidence that shows that the stock market will go up today, but still it doesn’t follow that the market will go down, nor that down is more probable, nor that down is more reasonable, nor that “down” should be the default position,

You would need evidence to reject the market will go UP claim in the same way you need evidnece to reject the “there is a god” claim

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The bed rock facts are supported by multiple independent sources, that is the main reason for why most historians accept these bed rock facts

Apart from the existence of Pilate, which is attested more or less independently through a number of sources (Josephus, etc.), the existence of Jesus, the disciples, and Paul are only attested to by a single source that has been developed and maintained by people with a vested interest in maintaining a certain narrative that cannot be demonstrated from independent sources.

The testimonies within the New Testament or other early Christian documents are not independent sources. Nor can they be cross-examined or compared with other similar testimonies of witnesses to the events of the time...which we don't have...

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, all I am saying that the existence of a god (any god) is “realistically possible”……….. with realistically possible I simply mean that it is not impossible nor very unlikely)

Anything is possible. But to actually get anywhere, we need to try to figure out if it's probable. You seem to be conflating the two terms and declaring that anything that is possible is also probable (which it isn't, necessarily).
Just because something isn't impossible, doesn't mean that it's "likely to happen."

You don’t seem to disagree, so can we move on, to the next topic?

I disagree. See above.

For the sake of this thread, I will assume that there is no evidence for a god.

Still form the fact that there is no evidence for a god, it doesn’t follow that he doesn’t exist nor that “no god” is the default position, nor the most reasonable position.

It's as though you didn't even read my post that you are responding to.

Which was, "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."

For example I am not aware of any evidence that shows that the stock market will go up today, but still it doesn’t follow that the market will go down, nor that down is more probable, nor that down is more reasonable, nor that “down” should be the default position,

Yes.

You would need evidence to reject the market will go UP claim in the same way you need evidnece to reject the “there is a god” claim

No.

 

[leroy]

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

Why adding new stuff, if the current arguments have been answered with nothing but “you are wrong because I say so”

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why adding new stuff, if the current arguments have been answered with nothing but “you are wrong because I say so”

That is not the case. That is your standard false accusation when you did not read or did not understand the refutations.

Which is part of the reason that you keep being put on "corrections only" mode.

 

[leroy]

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?

The fact that your are still driving your 10yo car is strong evidence against the claim that you won the lottery there is nothing contradictory.

Claim: you won the lottery (say 10 million usd 3 months ago)

Positive evidence against that claim: you driving an old car

Why is it evidence? Because people that win a lottery usually buy new luxury cars.

Let me know if I should prepare for a 100 post discussion on semantics.

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

Awesome, then all you have to do is that the none existence of a god is less likely than 50%+

In the case of the lottery we know that there are many tickets, and we know that only one (or few) win the lottery.

This is why the intrinsic probability of you winning the lottery is less than 50%, please feel free to make “the same argument” for a god

 

[Left Coast]

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.

One thing I would say is that for point 3, we do have Paul's first person account of his experiences that attest to them. So that would be the strongest of the three in terms of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fact that your are still driving your 10yo car is strong evidence against the claim that you won the lottery there is nothing contradictory.

Claim: you won the lottery (say 10 million usd 3 months ago)

Positive evidence against that claim: you driving an old car

Why is it evidence? Because people that win a lottery usually buy new luxury cars.

Let me know if I should prepare for a 100 post discussion on semantics.




Awesome, then all you have to do is that the none existence of a god is less likely than 50%+

In the case of the lottery we know that there are many tickets, and we know that only one (or few) win the lottery.

This is why the intrinsic probability of you winning the lottery is less than 50%, please feel free to make “the same argument” for a god

Oh, I see. I probably could come up with various arguments against God, but there is no need for me to do so. You misunderstood the lottery example, why didn't you tell me?

You are once again trying to shift the burden of proof because you have no evidence. Which to me amounts to you admitting that you were wrong.

Do you not understand that you cannot even show that a god is possible? We do know that lotteries exist, we do not know if gods exist. You cannot do any math for a god. Your argument fails because it is one hundred percent without support.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The fact that your are still driving your 10yo car is strong evidence against the claim that you won the lottery there is nothing contradictory.

Claim: you won the lottery (say 10 million usd 3 months ago)

Positive evidence against that claim: you driving an old car

Why is it evidence? Because people that win a lottery usually buy new luxury cars.

Usually or necessarily?

You honestly do not appear very good at this sort of thing.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

One thing I would say is that for point 3, we do have Paul's first person account of his experiences that attest to them. So that would be the strongest of the three in terms of evidence.

And yet, it is contained in the same source, where it was selected and apparently edited to make it conform with other parts of the story, and transmitted and maintained by the same group that had a vested interest in establishing and maintaining a coherent story...Paul is not independent of the rest of Christianity.

 

[Left Coast]

And yet, it is contained in the same source, where it was selected and apparently edited to make it conform with other parts of the story, and transmitted and maintained by the same group that had a vested interest in establishing and maintaining a coherent story...Paul is not independent of the rest of Christianity.

The letters of Paul weren't originally part of the Christian canon. They circulated to churches independently. It's true that editing has happened to them, but we have no reason to think those particular claims of Paul's were invented whole cloth by later scribes. Most scholars would say, for good reason, that by all appearances Paul did report he had those experiences. How to interpret them is a more interesting question.

 

[leroy]

Anything is possible. But to actually get anywhere, we need to try to figure out if it's probable. You seem to be conflating the two terms and declaring that anything that is possible is also probable (which it isn't, necessarily).
Just because something isn't impossible, doesn't mean that it's "likely to happen."

That is a straw Mann, i used the term “realistically possible” and I said what I mean with it (not impossible nor very unlikely)

So sure “everything is possible” but not everything is “realistically” possible


I am tired of your semantic games…………….if you don’t affirm directly and unambiguously that the existence of a god is not realistically possible (or very unlikely) I will assume that you agree with my statement.

I disagree. See above.

It's as though you didn't even read my post that you are responding to.

Which was, "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."

Again straw man, you didn’t read the complete sentence.

I said (or implied) that the lack of evidence that the market will go up today, doesn’t imply that the market will go down, nor that down is the most reasonable position nor that down should be the default position.

In other words, the lack of evidence for a god doesn’t imply that “no-god” is the most reasonable nor the default position.

No.

Well you are wrong,

the fact that that there is no evidence that the market will go up, doesn’t justify affit}rming “down”

 

[leroy]

Apart from the existence of Pilate, which is attested more or less independently through a number of sources (Josephus, etc.), the existence of Jesus, the disciples, and Paul are only attested to by a single source that has been developed and maintained by people with a vested interest in maintaining a certain narrative that cannot be demonstrated from independent sources.

The testimonies within the New Testament or other early Christian documents are not independent sources. Nor can they be cross-examined or compared with other similar testimonies of witnesses to the events of the time...which we don't have...

The testimonies within the New Testament or other early Christian documents are not independent sources

Why not? Define “independent source” and explain why aren’t Paul and John for example independent sources?

Please do not answer to my question if you are not going to define “independent source”

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The letters of Paul weren't originally part of the Christian canon. They circulated to churches independently. It's true that editing has happened to them, but we have no reason to think those particular claims of Paul's were invented whole cloth by later scribes. Most scholars would say, for good reason, that by all appearances Paul did report he had those experiences. How to interpret them is a more interesting question.

The churches his epistles were circulated to were of the Christian tradition. Still not independent of Christianity, and therefore not independent evidence of a resurrection. It shows that his stories were consistent with the developing narrative, and therefore were retained amongst the other texts included in the New Testament.

 

[leroy]

That is not the case. That is your standard false accusation when you did not read or did not understand the refutations.

Which is part of the reason that you keep being put on "corrections only" mode.

Just for your knowledge

“Corrections mode” in English means that you will show that a claim is wrong………………. you know like quoting my words and show that I am wrong.

I wonder what “corrections mode” means in your new and personal language……….

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just for your knowledge

“Corrections mode” in English means that you will show that a claim is wrong………………. you know like quoting my words and show that I am wrong.

I wonder what “corrections mode” means in your new and personal language……….

No, it means that due to your bad behavior you no longer get to make such demands.

If you do not like it change your behavior. It is really not that hard to debate honestly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is a straw Mann, i used the term “realistically possible” and I said what I mean with it (not impossible nor very unlikely)

So sure “everything is possible” but not everything is “realistically” possible


I am tired of your semantic games…………….if you don’t affirm directly and unambiguously that the existence of a god is not realistically possible (or very unlikely) I will assume that you agree with my statement.




Again straw man, you didn’t read the complete sentence.

I said (or implied) that the lack of evidence that the market will go up today, doesn’t imply that the market will go down, nor that down is the most reasonable position nor that down should be the default position.

In other words, the lack of evidence for a god doesn’t imply that “no-god” is the most reasonable nor the default position.






Well you are wrong,

the fact that that there is no evidence that the market will go up, doesn’t justify affit}rming “down”

Then you defeat yourself again because you have no ability at all to rationally claim that a magical God is anywhere near "realistically possible". You keep shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Why not? Define “independent source” and explain why aren’t Paul and John for example independent sources?

Really? you don't understand the concept of dependence and independence? Talk about playing semantic games!

Paul and John are not independent sources from the rest of the New Testament because Christians created them, and other then conserved, preserved, edited, collected and canonized those writings along with others that they found consistent with the story they wished the texts to tell...at the same time, they selected some other texts to not conserve, preserve, edit, and collect. Those were also in the Christian tradition at the time, and cannot be considered completely independent.

 

[leroy]

The churches his epistles were circulated to were of the Christian tradition. Still not independent of Christianity, and therefore not independent evidence of a resurrection. It shows that his stories were consistent with the developing narrative, and therefore were retained amongst the other texts included in the New Testament.

Ok they are not independent of Christianity (whatever that means)



But they are independent from each other, (they didn’t copied from each other nor form a common source)

This means that multiple authors made their own research independently and arrived at the same conclusion (the disciples where claiming to have seen the risen Jesus for example)

herefore not independent evidence of a resurrection.

it would be independent evidnece for the disciples claiming to have seen the risen Jesus