Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[leroy]

I do not even need a specific hypothesis since there are countless ones that defeat yours. Do you think that you can refute that hypothesis? I am sure that what was needed was explained to you by me. Refute the version that you just posted and I will give all that was required again.

Naturalistic hypothesis: the apostles proclaimed the resurrection because they saw someone that looks like Jesus (all the appearances mentioned in the NT are just mistakes, people saw a guy that looks like Jesus)

1 Both hypothesis the resurrection and the natrual hypothesis invoke an extraordinary and unprecedented event. So with this respect there is a draw.

2 Both hypothesis: invoke the existence of a person without evidnece………..the resurrection hypothesis presupposes the existence of God, the natural hypothesis presupposes the existence of a man that looked like Jesus, and that willing to play a joke (draw)

3 explanatory scope, the resurrection explains for example the empty tomb claims, the “mistake” hypothesis has to propose a whole new hypothesis to explain those claims and then show that this hypothesis is likely to be true (this is a violation of okams razor)….(resurrection wins)

4 the resurrection has more explanatory power, an actual resurrection is more likely to convince anyone than “a man that looks like Jesus) (resurrection wins)

5 the natrual hypothesis is adhoc, it was design to explain the data, while the in the resurrection hypothesis the data naturally flows (resurrection wins)

So according to these 5 criteria we have 2 draws and 3 wins for the resurrection hypothesis, the resurrection wins.

 

[shunyadragon]

Both seem ok to me.
........

Imagine that there are 100 neighbors living in a building and someone left his trash in the lobby.

The intrinsic probability that any specific neighbor did it (say John) is 1%.

In this context any bit of information that makes john more likely to be guilty than 1% would be evidence in favor of the John did it hypothesis

Moving the probability from 1% to 2% would be week relatively evidence

Moving the probability from 1% to 50% would be strong evidence

Moving the probability to 80% is convincing evidence

99.99% conclusive evidence

Nothing here is relevant to the probability of the resurrection being true since there is not evidence to support it at the 1% level.

 

[leroy]

This was in response to, "If you can't define the thing(s) you're talking about, how are we supposed to engage with you and your arguments?

I am not talking about “supernatural” your friend @TagliatelliMonster is, why don’t you demand him to provide a definition? ohhhhh yea because you don’t what to expose your atheist friend

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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?

I'm just going to cut straight to the point. Grief hallucinations are actually quite common. Undoubtedly some of Jesus' followers had some of these grief hallucinations and shared them. Thus began the rumor of resurrection, which grew over time. By the time the gospels were written, the legend was firmly entrenched. But not accurate.

Did you know that the Sufi Mystic Al Hallaj was also reported to have risen from the dead? Do you also believe those accounts?

 

[leroy]

Nothing here is relevant to the probability of the resurrection being true since there is not evidence to support it at the 1% level.

Well I guess the next step is you providing conclusive evidence against the “a god caused the resurrection hypotheiss” such that this hypothesis is refuted with 99%+ certainty

 

[shunyadragon]

Naturalistic hypothesis: the apostles proclaimed the resurrection because they saw someone that looks like Jesus (all the appearances mentioned in the NT are just mistakes, people saw a guy that looks like Jesus)

1 Both hypothesis the resurrection and the natrual hypothesis invoke an extraordinary and unprecedented event. So with this respect there is a draw.

The natural hypothesis does not propose an extraordinary event. 1-0

2 Both hypothesis: invoke the existence of a person without evidence………..the resurrection hypothesis presupposes the existence of God, the natural hypothesis presupposes the existence of a man that looked like Jesus, and that willing to play a joke (draw)

The natural hypothesis proposes nothing of the above, 2=0

3 explanatory scope, the resurrection explains for example the empty tomb claims, the “mistake” hypothesis has to propose a whole new hypothesis to explain those claims and then show that this hypothesis is likely to be true (this is a violation of okams razor)….(resurrection wins)

The empty tomb claim is just an empty tomb claim. NAturalist hypothesis proposes nothing extraordinary here. The body may have been stolen or removed to prevent it from being stolen, or simply an empty tomb where no one was placed. 3-0

4 the resurrection has more explanatory power, an actual resurrection is more likely to convince anyone than “a man that looks like Jesus) (resurrection wins)

There is no explanatory power here for anything. There may have never been a man that looked like Jesus' there are many men that looked like Jesus, or the claims of the sightings of Jesus were added to justify the resurrection claim. There are absolutely no independent records reporting these sightings nor even the life of Jesus, 4-0

5 the natural hypothesis is ad-hoc, it was designed to explain the data, while the in the resurrection hypothesis the data naturally flows (resurrection wins)

The Natural explanation is not ad=hoc nor designed to demonstrate anything. The claim of resurrection is a claimed miraculous or supernatural event without any independent corroboration at the time it is claimed to take place. In fact, again, there are no corroborating independent records for the life of Jesus at that time, 5-0

So according to these 5 criteria, we have 2 draws and 3 wins for the resurrection hypothesis, the resurrection wins.

These are not legitimate criteria for any claimed miraculous event in history., because they do not meet the academic historical academic criteria for ALL historical events in human history, This is made up criteria to justify your agenda.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok so Paul, peter James and the apóstoles saw a distant light, they claimed it was Jesus and they embellished the story because they had an agenda and wanted to convince everybody that Jeuss resurrected.

Is this your hypothesis?

Many people in history claim they see light and visions of Jesus, and even claim to have talked with him. This is true in other religions. Such claims are not convincing today nor during the life of Jesus.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am not talking about “supernatural” your friend @TagliatelliMonster is, why don’t you demand him to provide a definition? ohhhhh yea because you don’t what to expose your atheist friend

Definitions of the supernatural have been provided and standard English dictionaries.

adjective

1. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
   "a supernatural being"
   
   Similar:
   paranormal, psychic, magic, magical. occult, mystic, mystical. miraculous, superhuman. supernormal, hypernormal, extramundane.
   
   Opposite:
   natural, normal

noun

1. manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts.
   "a frightening manifestation of the supernatural"

(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well I guess the next step is you providing conclusive evidence against the “a god caused the resurrection hypotheiss” such that this hypothesis is refuted with 99%+ certainty

Logic nor science prove the negative, Science functions on the falsification of hypotheses and theories based on positive objectively verifiable evidence,

Science cannot falsify hypotheses involving whether Gods exist or not, or whether supernatural events occur or not.

The bottom line is there is not any collaborating independent sources for the life of Jesus or the resurrection. Academic history considers religious narratives of ALL religions as just that. They do compare different sources and archaeological evidence to determine what may be considered historically verified. There is enough evidence from different sources to conclude a Jew known as Joshua (Greek Jesus) possibly a Rabbi lived at the time the gospels claim, He claimed to be the Messiah King of the Jews, He was tried and convicted under Pontius Pilate for treason against Rome and executed by crucifixion, the standard punishment treason under Roman Law. History acknowledges the Biblical biography as a narrative of the life of Jesus, but not necessarily factual. Secular historians are neutral to the religious claims of Jesus Christ.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Naturalistic hypothesis: the apostles proclaimed the resurrection because they saw someone that looks like Jesus (all the appearances mentioned in the NT are just mistakes, people saw a guy that looks like Jesus)

1 Both hypothesis the resurrection and the natrual hypothesis invoke an extraordinary and unprecedented event. So with this respect there is a draw.

2 Both hypothesis: invoke the existence of a person without evidnece………..the resurrection hypothesis presupposes the existence of God, the natural hypothesis presupposes the existence of a man that looked like Jesus, and that willing to play a joke (draw)

3 explanatory scope, the resurrection explains for example the empty tomb claims, the “mistake” hypothesis has to propose a whole new hypothesis to explain those claims and then show that this hypothesis is likely to be true (this is a violation of okams razor)….(resurrection wins)

4 the resurrection has more explanatory power, an actual resurrection is more likely to convince anyone than “a man that looks like Jesus) (resurrection wins)

5 the natrual hypothesis is adhoc, it was design to explain the data, while the in the resurrection hypothesis the data naturally flows (resurrection wins)

So according to these 5 criteria we have 2 draws and 3 wins for the resurrection hypothesis, the resurrection wins.

No. You started off with a strawman. Why assume that the apostles saw him?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not talking about “supernatural” your friend @TagliatelliMonster is, why don’t you demand him to provide a definition? ohhhhh yea because you don’t what to expose your atheist friend

The resurrection would have been supernatural.

 

[blü 2]

Again, your concept of what God is supposed to be doesn't include natural disasters, accidents, sprained ankle, sickness, toothache etc. Its your God that doesn't exist so you are right about that.

Yes, all true!
Omnipotent?
Omniscient?
Approachable by humans?
Responsive to approaches?
Benevolent and loving?
Forgiving?
Omnipresent?
Perfect (I'm not sure what that means, but it's claimed for God)?
Infinite?
Eternal?

First, the only way supernatural entities of any kind, from gods to werewolves to gnomes and fairies, and on and on, are known to exist is as concepts / things imagined in individual brains. None of them is found is reality, the world external to the self. If it were otherwise you could show me videos and interviews and offer me a seat at personal appearances.

Second, you affirm that my list of God's qualities is "all true". But you haven't told me why this omnipotent benevolent approachable responsive entity of yours allows genetic defects, cripples people, kills people with disease, famine, war, accident, &c, sits on [his] hands when appealed to by people in trouble, in short behaves exactly and only as if [he] were imaginary.

That 's not benevolence, that's total indifference, what you'd expect if God did not exist except as a range of ideas.

 

[Colt]

First, the only way supernatural entities of any kind, from gods to werewolves to gnomes and fairies, and on and on, are known to exist is as concepts / things imagined in individual brains. None of them is found is reality, the world external to the self. If it were otherwise you could show me videos and interviews and offer me a seat at personal appearances.

Second, you affirm that my list of God's qualities is "all true". But you haven't told me why this omnipotent benevolent approachable responsive entity of yours allows genetic defects, cripples people, kills people with disease, famine, war, accident, &c, sits on [his] hands when appealed to by people in trouble, in short behaves exactly and only as if [he] were imaginary.

That 's not benevolence, that's total indifference, what you'd expect if God did not exist except as a range of ideas.

I did tell you, we are supposed to be experiencing material reality which includes suffering. The Creator Son came down and lived the life we are called to live. He even chose a painful death.

Our problems on earth wouldn’t be so bad if it wasn’t for Lucifers Atheistic rebellion against the Father. Our world suffered a double default. Many viruses and genetic defects would have been remedied long ago by Adam and Eve but they were tripped up.

 

[shunyadragon]

I did tell you, we are supposed to be experiencing material reality which includes suffering. The Creator Son came down and lived the life we are called to live. He even chose a painful death.

Our problems on earth wouldn’t be so bad if it wasn’t for Lucifers Atheistic rebellion against the Father. Our world suffered a double default. Many viruses and genetic defects would have been remedied long ago by Adam and Eve but they were tripped up.

First, Lucifer was not atheist, He believed in God or as the pantheon of Gods is described in the OT and Trinity.

Your obsession with atheists and atheism is all over the place.

 

[blü 2]

I did tell you, we are supposed to be experiencing material reality which includes suffering. The Creator Son came down and lived the life we are called to live. He even chose a painful death.

No, you said God was benevolent, but [his] track record is at best one of total indifference to humans.

And what on earth is the point of a painful death (if you're not a masochist)? Not even THE most painful death, just a style ─ crucifixion ─ that the Romans routinely used as a form of execution. Move along, folks, many thousands of these, nothing special here.

If you want something and you're God and you're omnipotent, you just snap your fingers and make a wish and voilà! But you can't go round killing people, let alone killing them by torture, and still pretend to be benevolent. You can't watch a toddler fall into a swimming pool and drown while you look on and do absolutely nothing to help, and still pretend to be benevolent. You can't watch criminals make their plans and carry them out in breach of the law and not even tip the police off, let alone use your omnipotence to sort things out, and still pretend to be benevolent.

Our problems on earth wouldn’t be so bad if it wasn’t for Lucifers Atheistic rebellion against the Father. Our world suffered a double default. Many viruses and genetic defects would have been remedied long ago by Adam and Eve but they were tripped up.

The Tanakh says nothing of the kind. It says that Eve is a great heroine of humanity for bringing us knowledge of good and evil. It's only a story, of course, but it's a positive and uplifting story. It also says that God was frightened at the prospect of Adam and Eve becoming immortal like [him] and thus [his] rival, and that's why [he] chucked them out of the Garden. You should read it some time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you understood the generic nature spiritual truth then you could find it in most all of those religions with the exception of Scientology which is just retarded!

Yes yes, scientology is retarded, but all the others using the exact same basis of "faith", are not off course, obviously....
And yes yes, all the other mutually exclusive religions are equally correct (and wrong).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have evidence. Otherwise, they'd give the evidence instead.
-Matt Dillahunty

Faith is believing something you know ain't true.
- Mark Twain

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Subjective experience with God doesn't come with objective verification.

The same is true for subjective experience with:
- alien abduction
- bigfoot
- your inner thetan
- ....

Atheist's know this so they get off on demanding answers that they know cant be proven, then congratulate themselves! For the apostles everything was still a matter of faith regardless of what they witnessed!

Not just for the apostles. For everyone who wants to believe something / anything for which there is no evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Neither Elvis, Tupac or Michael Jackson returned from the dead

How do you know?
Did they die? Yes, definitely.
Were they seen afterwards? Yes, plenty of people claimed to have seen them.

Why would you reject these people's testimony at face value?

so any one of those classifications could fit. The Son of God incarnate, laid down his life or mortal flesh and returned 3 days later in a form that resembled that of his previous body.

Those who saw him resurrected were obviously shocked and surprised! Even some apostles doubted the initial reports until they saw him with their own eyes.

I'm guessing the people that saw Elvis, Michael and Typac were shocked as well.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, to say that James the brother of Jesus (+ many others) concluded that Jesus resurrected, because they saw someone that looks like Jesus is an extraordinary claim that has never been reported.

Hearsay.

I would say that the resurrection is more likely.

Extra-ordinary things requiring the suspension of natural law is never "more likely" then someone made a mistake or lied or exaggerated or embellished.

Compare

1 the probability that a god excists + the probability that he descided to cause the resurection of a man

How do you calculate the probability that a god exists?
How do you calculate the probability that something that requires the suspension of natural law happened?

Vs

2 The probability that hundrets of people concluded that Jesus resurrected

Correction: that a few people (at best) CLAIMED that hundreds of people concluded....
And it's actually vs "the probability that someone made a mistake, lied, exaggerated, embellished".

And as I have said multiple times already, the latter is as good as 1 in 1. As people do that ALL THE TIME. We have innumerable examples of it.
And we have exactly ZERO examples of extra-ordinary things that require the suspension of natural law.

Under what basis do you affirm that 2 is more probable?

Your option 2 is a strawman as it is not what I said.
What I say is more likely is: "someone made a mistake or lied or exaggerated or embellished".
All of which are more likely then "the laws of nature were suspended".

I mean even if I grant that there are good arguments against the existence of a god and zero good arguments in favor of a god, such that we are 90% certain that god doesn’t exists. Option “2” would still be less likely than 1.

/facepalm

Your elvis examples are disanalogous because

1 nobody concluded that elvis resurrected (some concluded that he didn’t die)

2 no close relative of elvis claimed that he was alive,

3 nobody was really serious nor convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Elvis was alive, nobody was willing to die (or willing to lose something) for their believes in Elvis.