Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[Left Coast]

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.

LOL. On the contrary, I have read and heard Mike Licona's work before. He's been around awhile.

Mind you, I'm not dismissing you or the others, I'm grateful for the participation as your comments may lead me to new considerstions 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.

The thing is, his work is not that different from other apologists (e.g. Habermas). The argument as you've laid it out here is a version of one I've read and studied and debated about many times before. I was once a Christian, not unlike you.

What would be more fruitful, for purposes of a discussion on this site, is for you to make your own points that perhaps reference additional reading materials if people are interested.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

What parts do you think have not been engaged?

 

[Apologes]

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.

I fail to see your response to what I said in that post. May I ask what these logical fallacies are and where I made them?

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

Care to elaborate?

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.


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.


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.

The gospels are considered to be bioi, ancient biographies. Whatever shortcoming they may have isn't much different to other writings of this genre. Since you are responding to my replies to other people you may as well follow what was being said as I already explained how the gospels relate to this argument.

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.

I don't have much else to say other than that you should read more New Testament scholarship honestly. I can give you some examples if you want..

 

[danieldemol]

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.

You are using highly confusing language then, why not just say Jesus was believed to be a miracle worker and an exorcist by his peers?
That doesn't increase your chances that God actually chose to raise Jesus from the dead. It just tells us about how credulous pre-scientific people were in my view.

 

[blü 2]

I recently finished Michael Licona's book The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach which argues that there are 3 minimal facts that are accepted by virtually all New Testament scholars which form the so called historical bedrock regarding the fate of Jesus. These are as follows:

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

Licona argues in detail against the naturalistic hypotheses that attempt to account for the bedrock and concludes that the best explanation is that Jesus actually rose from the dead. He does so by ranking each hypothesis based on how well they satisfy the following criteria:

- Explanatory scope - does the hypothesis account for all the data
- Explanatory power - how well does the hypothesis explain the data
- Plausibility - is the hypothesis compatible with or implied by facts that are generally accepted as known
- Less ad hoc - does the hypothesis go beyond what is known and makes unevidenced assumptions
- Illumination (a bonus criteria) - does the hypothesis shed light on other areas of inquiry

Has anyone interacted with this argument or others similar to it such as those of N.T. Wright, William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas? If so, what are your objections to it?

These are some of the problems with the resurrection as an historical event ─

The story is truly, madly, deeply not believable, just on the face of it. There is no way that a person whose body's life support functions have irreversibly ceased ─ which is what death is ─ can come back to life. If they can they never satisfied the definition of death.
•
The story is a common one in ancient times, the sort of thing all sorts of people in all sorts of stories did because it was expected. Just in the bible alone ─
* Samuel came back after his death and spoke with Saul (though arguably he was a ghost, not a resurrected body.)
* Elijah raised the Zarephath woman’s son (1 Kings 17:17+).
* Elisha raised the Shunammite woman’s son (2 Kings 4:32+).
* The man whose dead body touched Elisha’s bones was resurrected (2 Kings 4:32+)
* Jesus raised the Nain widow’s son (Luke 7:12+).
* Jesus raised Lazarus (John 11:41-44).
* Peter raised Tabitha / Dorcas (Acts 9:36-40).
* Matthew describes the faithful dead at large in the streets of Jerusalem (Matthew 27:52-53).
(And excepting Tabitha alone, notice how nobody raises dead women. Even Orpheus couldn't do it.)
•
There is no eyewitness account of it.
•
There is no contemporary account of it.
•
There is no independent account of it.
•
There are four 'accounts' in the gospels, a mention by Paul and a mention in Acts 1. Each of those 'accounts' contradicts the other five in major ways. You couldn't renew a dog license with evidence of that quality ─ it's abysmal.

It didn't happen. It's a no-brainer.

 

[danieldemol]

The gospels are considered to be bioi, ancient biographies.

I thought they were considered to be ancient Hagiographies. Are you uncritically swallowing indoctrination?

 

[Apologes]

LOL. On the contrary, I have read and heard Mike Licona's work before. He's been around awhile.



The thing is, his work is not that different from other apologists (e.g. Habermas). The argument as you've laid it out here is a version of one I've read and studied and debated about many times before. I was once a Christian, not unlike you.

What would be more fruitful, for purposes of a discussion on this site, is for you to make your own points that perhaps reference additional reading materials if people are interested.

Well, I got a different impression because you misunderstood certain things in a way only an unfamiliar person would. I don't doubt you though, it was just the conclusion I ended up with.

Habermas is actually Licona's mentor so yes their approaches are similar although I take Licona to be more persuasive than Habermas but that's a different story.

I will write out a fuller reply as you request tomorrow and I will reference you to specific parts of the book if you wish. It's a bit too late for me to do that now hence why the OP was also brief.

 

[Left Coast]

Well, I got a different impression because you misunderstood certain things in a way only an unfamiliar person would. I don't doubt you though, it was just the conclusion I ended up with.

What did I misunderstand? You haven't pointed anything out to me yet.

Habermas is actually Licona's mentor so yes their approaches are similar although I take Licona to be more persuasive than Habermas but that's a different story.

I will write out a fuller reply as you request tomorrow and I will reference you to specific parts of the book if you wish. It's a bit too late for me to do that now hence why the OP was also brief.

No problem! Talk to you later.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Because people don't come back alive after being dead for days, as a rule. It's a one way trip. Any claim of some miracle explanation that violates everything we know about how the world works is going to have automatically very low plausibility.

And consequently really ought to have a much greater need for verifiable evidence to be accepted.

 

[Apologes]

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.

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?

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?

I didn't claim what you describe in the first paragraph. I said the context of Jesus life provided a chance for divine vindication. The context here refers to the historical bedrock pertaining to his life.

I would much rather you give an example of a naturalistic theory you think is most plausible and we go from there as the book is 600 pages with the treatment of naturalistic hypotheses being about a 100 so it would be unrealistic for you to expect me to summarise all of that down in a single post.

Paul never met Jesus but he met the disciples and other members of the early Church who did meet Jesus and is relaying information he got from them. Given how early these go the idea of legendary development is highly unlikely if not completely uncalled for given how we don't approach other texts with that level of skepticism even when they are far later and far more exaggerated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I fail to see your response to what I said in that post. May I ask what these logical fallacies are and where I made them?

If you understand logical fallacies then perhaps you are not ready to debate yet. You do not get to put different standards on your beliefs than you put on the beliefs of others. In other words, if you are going to assume that your God is real then you have to assume that all Gods are real and even you without any experience has to be able to see that is extremely contrdictory.

Care to elaborate?

Are you now admitting that you do not understand your own arguments. You are going to have to break your arguments up if you do not understand the quick refutations of them. It should have been obvious that even with that standard you claims are not plausible. There are far more likely solutions.

The gospels are considered to be bioi, ancient biographies. Whatever shortcoming they may have isn't much different to other writings of this genre. Since you are responding to my replies to other people you may as well follow what was being said as I already explained how the gospels relate to this argument.

Not by historians Nor by scholars. They may be considered that by believers, but you want to convince nonbelievers here. You can also go preach to the choir and have them all agree with you. The Gospels are also weak because when read in parallel one can see important differences between them. For example if you studied the Bible at all you would be aware of the roughly ten year gap between the dates of the nativity between Luke and Matthew. Was it in 6 CE or about 4 BCE or earlier?

I don't have much else to say other than that you should read more New Testament scholarship honestly. I can give you some examples if you want..

I do not think that you are reading NT scholarship. You are probably reading NT apologetics. Apologists are not scholars

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't claim what you describe in the first paragraph. I said the context of Jesus life provided a chance for divine vindication. The context here refers to the historical bedrock pertaining to his life.

Once again, there is no such "bedrock". You might get away with this in a Christian DIR. No one is going to let you assume that the Gospels are history here.

I would much rather you give an example of a naturalistic theory you think is most plausible and we go from there as the book is 600 pages with the treatment of naturalistic hypotheses being about a 100 so it would be unrealistic for you to expect me to summarise all of that down in a single post.

Again, the length of the book does not help. You are talking to another on what he thinks is most reasonable. I gave you mine. With a peer reviewed article that supported it.

Paul never met Jesus but he met the disciples and other members of the early Church who did meet Jesus and is relaying information he got from them. Given how early these go the idea of legendary development is highly unlikely if not completely uncalled for given how we don't approach other texts with that level of skepticism even when they are far later and far more exaggerated.

That is true. He met Peter at least. Perhaps another. And he seemed to think that he knew more about Jesus than they did. Have you ever wondered why? And it only takes a few years for legends to develop. Once again, seriously you need to look into claims about Elvis Presley after his death. And that occurred in the days of modern news sources. And the Gospels also show signs of exaggeration. Marks, written about 65 CE only had the empty tomb originally. It ended with Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome fleeing the empty tomb. They get more and more magical. John is almost all magic Jesus. And it was written about 100 CE

 

[danieldemol]

I didn't claim what you describe in the first paragraph. I said the context of Jesus life provided a chance for divine vindication. The context here refers to the historical bedrock pertaining to his life.

It looks as though you are being unnecessarily vague here, which specific relevant part of the context of Jesus life provided a chance for divine vindication? No need to answer again because you already said it here (bold added by me);

...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 other words since it is his death that offered the chance for divine vindication and *not* his alleged resurrection Jesus could have concievably died for the purpose of divine vindication and not been resurrected. His death in my view does not indicate increase in the probability of resurrection.

I would much rather you give an example of a naturalistic theory you think is most plausible and we go from there as the book is 600 pages with the treatment of naturalistic hypotheses being about a 100 so it would be unrealistic for you to expect me to summarise all of that down in a single post.

Are you telling me you would rather address your own argument than address mine?

Paul never met Jesus but he met the disciples and other members of the early Church who did meet Jesus and is relaying information he got from them. Given how early these go the idea of legendary development is highly unlikely if not completely uncalled for given how we don't approach other texts with that level of skepticism even when they are far later and far more exaggerated.

If we don't it should be easy for you to find an example of a miracle from another ancient text that we don't approach with that level of skepticism, especially one which is far later and far more exaggerated in my view.

 

[lukethethird]

I am not sure if you're expressing doubt regarding the existence of a consensus or if you're incredulous regarding the New Testament scholars in general?

I don't doubt that NT scholars accept these "minimal facts." Why wouldn't they? Don't most humans have gullible streaks running through them?

 

[ppp]

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

For the sake of discussion, sure.

Explanatory scope - does the hypothesis account for all the data

No. It does not account for the data that show people don't arise from the dead 18 hours after exsanguination. This is a really big one.

Explanatory power - how well does the hypothesis explain the data

Poorly. One must ignore the aforementioned evidence against.

Plausibility - is the hypothesis compatible with or implied by facts that are generally accepted as known

Again. Not plausible. Medical evidence.

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

Yes.

Illumination (a bonus criteria) - does the hypothesis shed light on other areas of inquiry

No. It increases shadows.

 

[sayak83]

I recently finished Michael Licona's book The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach which argues that there are 3 minimal facts that are accepted by virtually all New Testament scholars which form the so called historical bedrock regarding the fate of Jesus. These are as follows:

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

Licona argues in detail against the naturalistic hypotheses that attempt to account for the bedrock and concludes that the best explanation is that Jesus actually rose from the dead. He does so by ranking each hypothesis based on how well they satisfy the following criteria:

- Explanatory scope - does the hypothesis account for all the data
- Explanatory power - how well does the hypothesis explain the data
- Plausibility - is the hypothesis compatible with or implied by facts that are generally accepted as known
- Less ad hoc - does the hypothesis go beyond what is known and makes unevidenced assumptions
- Illumination (a bonus criteria) - does the hypothesis shed light on other areas of inquiry

Has anyone interacted with this argument or others similar to it such as those of N.T. Wright, William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas? If so, what are your objections to it?

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

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

All of these are far more plausible than resurrection.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I recently finished Michael Licona's book The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach which argues that there are 3 minimal facts that are accepted by virtually all New Testament scholars which form the so called historical bedrock regarding the fate of Jesus. These are as follows:

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

2. and 3. are problematic. Scholars don't agree on that. Most of them agree that the gospels were written by anonymous non-eyewitness authors. Paul didn't witness the physical resurrection (he didn't meet Jesus in the time between resurrection and ascension). He had a vision.

 

[leroy]

Because people don't come back alive after being dead for days, as a rule. It's a one way trip. (@Left Coast said)

We know that people don't rise from the dead on their own, true, but here we are talking about God raising someone from the dead. This isn't going against how the world works as its not the laws of nature that are raising the dead but an act of God. On what basis would you assign a low plausibility to God choosing to raise Jesus from the dead a priori?

I would add that any alternative to the resurrection (mass hallucinations, web of lies, conspiracy, jesus had a twin brother, leyends)

Would also be something extraordinary that has never been obverved to happen. For example the type of hallucinations require to explain the data, would have to be a type of hallucinations that has never been observed, nor proven to be possible.

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

Good luck with that , my experience in this forum is that you will not get direct anwers for that type of questions.

Even from a point if view of an agnostic (someone who doesn't know if God exists and would asign something like a 50%/50% probability) the probability of a resurection wouldn't be too low........ because if God excist miracles and resurections wouldn't be intrinsically unlikely

Only a strong atheist with conclusive evidence against God could reject the resurection on the basis that the intrinsic probability is too low. But that requires a burden that no atheist from this forum would be eilling to carry.

 

[leroy]

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.

I would add.....
When people see a dead relative or friend In a dream or in hallucinations , people generally (or never) conclude that a bodily resurection occurred..... at most they would conclude that their dead reative is comunicating with them (supernaturally) from the other world.


If the disciples would have had a hallucination, they would have proclaimed a superatural experience, but not a physical resurection. A GOHST jesus would have been consistent with jewish belives and would have been interpreted as a miracle

So why would the disciples and first generation Christians proclaim a resurection if it was just a hallucination. ?

The point is that resurection or not, you still have an extraordinary event.

 

[leroy]

You give far too much credibility to the Gospels

In fact he doesn't.......for the sake of his argument Licona (and therefore @Apologes ) is putting the gospels in the same category that you would put king arthurs leyends or Titanic (the movie with Leo Dicaprio)


His point is that even if we dismiss the gospels as "just stories" his 3 minimal facts would still be true.