Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?

[Fran]

No derailing here, just a pertinent question.

The VAST MAJORITY of biologists and geneticists, who use the SCIENTIFIC METHOD agree that evolution is SCIENTIFIC FACT.

Have you left your bronze age creation myths behind, Fran? No? Why not?

While the reason for your maintained ignorance is not the same as the reason atheists here look at your "historical facts" as spurious claims, I am interested in your response.

Tell me what evolution is.  In your own words.  How you understand it.

My undersanding of evolution is irrelevant to the point of the questions you fail to answer in this last post.

Answers, or no?

If you wish to make a quick google search to discover a succinct, lay, rendering of one of the most well supported paradigms in the natural sciences before you answer, that's fine. If you intend to dodge, well, whatever.

If you're understanding of evolution is irrelevant, then why did you bring it up?

[Inactive_1]

From now on any replies not addressing the subject at hand will be deleted without notice. We have enough to do without adding side-debates. Please stay on the topic from this point forward - both sides.

[InvisiblePinkUnicorn]

Fran:

You are starting to sound hysterical.  Please stop saying things like "vast majority of scholors and historians" and start providing citations.  To do otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

I will again repeat my offer.  if you would like to assert a claim and have a debate with me on the subject, please let me know.  So far you have ignored all of my offers.

[subtleinspiration]

If you're understanding of evolution is irrelevant, then why did you bring it up?

Fran, what part of this:

Sidenote: Please leave off the comments on evolution and the rest. This may take several weeks to go through, so all the extra bonus comments are really going to pile up.

do you not get? Please answer the specific questions directed towards you on this topic and ignore the rest. Anything else is a waste of thread space.

Thank you.

[Airyaman]

so to start off, there are four historical facts which must be explained by any adequate historical hypothesis:

1)... Jesus’ burial

2)... the discovery of his empty tomb

3)... his post-mortem appearances

4)... the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.

Page 5 and still nothing to back the above. Can you point to one single historian who wrote of 2-4 (or even 1) during a time around Jesus' life?

[subtleinspiration]

Can you point to one single historian who wrote of 2-4 (or even 1) during a time around Jesus' life?

And Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John do not count, Fran.

[Airyaman]

Can you point to one single historian who wrote of 2-4 (or even 1) during a time around Jesus' life?

And Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John do not count, Fran.

More so because all with the exception of possibly Luke are anonymous. And Luke was based on stories others told.

[Airyaman]

If you take the miracles out of the bible then you will be unable to "prove" your last two "facts".

[Fran]

Hello Count Iblis...

So let me get this straight.  Are you disputing that the 4 historical facts I've presented are not historical?  

Yes.

That these 4 historical facts are not agreed upon as historical facts by the vast majority of Biblical Scholars and Historians?  

I don't know if they are or not. I don't care either. The Argument from Authority means nothing to me. If they believe without evidence then their opinion is useless. If they have evidence then you should be able to supply it.

But they do believe BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENCE... that is the whole point... and that is what scholars do.  They didn't just say it without supporting their opinion.  No scholars do that because the other scholars would rightly laugh at them and they wouldn't be taken seriously.

So you can't use that argument at all.  All that is on display is your ignorance of what they've written and how they came to their conclusion.

What you really want, is to know WHY they came to their conclusions... to see their reasoning.

And I guess for you and Admin 1, and others in here... I will have to plow through their technical stuff to help you with such basic stuff.

So I am off this weekend, and together... all of us in here will go through EACH of the agreed upon historical facts... ONE AT A TIME.  I will start with historical fact number one... and then when everyone is satisfied (maybe we can take a vote), then we'll move onto historical fact number two... etc.

[subtleinspiration]

Fran, please provide the names and links for the historical scholars who accept your four facts.

Thank you.

[Inactive_1]

2 comments were deleted for failure to stay on topic. I meant what I said. Stay on topic or I will delete the comment.

The topic is Jesus rising from death into life again

[subtleinspiration]

all of us in here will go through EACH of the agreed upon historical facts... ONE AT A TIME.  I will start with historical fact number one... and then when everyone is satisfied (maybe we can take a vote), then we'll move onto historical fact number two... etc.

Fran, why not start now? Why is it with you theists that you make these bold promises of getting to the facts? Why not just get to the facts? It's not that hard.

Unless you just don't have any facts to get to.

[Airyaman]

Don't bother folks. Here is the "evidence" as supplied by William Lane Craig: Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? A Debate between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman. Every bit of it uses the bible as "evidence". Been there, done that.

[CutePuppy]

Don't bother folks. Here is the "evidence" as supplied by William Lane Craig: Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? A Debate between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman. Every bit of it uses the bible as "evidence". Been there, done that.

From that PDF/Transcript:

(I) There are four historical facts which must be explained by any adequate historical hypothesis: 
o Jesus’ burial
o the discovery of his empty tomb
o his post-mortem appearances
o the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.

Now, let’s look at that first contention more closely.  I want to share four facts which are widely accepted by historians today.  Fact #1:  After his crucifixion Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb.  Historians have established this fact on the basis of evidence such as the following: 

1.  Jesus’ burial is multiply attested in early, independent sources.  We have four biographies of Jesus, by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which have been collected into the New Testament, along with various letters of the apostle Paul.  Now the burial account is part of Mark’s source material for the story of Jesus’ suffering and death.  This is a very early source which is probably based on eyewitness testimony and which the commentator Rudolf Pesch dates to within seven years of the crucifixion.  Moreover, Paul also cites an extremely early source for Jesus’ burial which most scholars date to within five years of Jesus’ crucifixion.  Independent testimony to Jesus’ burial by Joseph is also found in the sources behind Matthew and Luke and the Gospel of John, not to mention the extra-biblical Gospel of Peter.  Thus, we have the remarkable number of at least five independent sources for Jesus’ burial, some of which are extraordinarily early.

2.  As a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention.

What the...? I read this entire thread for this? Oh well, I guess shame on me for actually expecting anything worth mentioning.

[InvisiblePinkUnicorn]

Don't bother folks. Here is the "evidence" as supplied by William Lane Craig: Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? A Debate between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman. Every bit of it uses the bible as "evidence". Been there, done that.

Nice paper.  Thank you!

[subtleinspiration]

Don't bother folks. Here is the "evidence" as supplied by William Lane Craig: Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? A Debate between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman. Every bit of it uses the bible as "evidence". Been there, done that.

Thank you Airyman. Since Fran obviously cannot be bothered, I can use this.

Fact #1: After his crucifixion Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb.
Historians have established this fact on the basis of evidence such as the following:

1. Jesus’ burial is multiply attested in early, independent sources.

We have four biographies of Jesus, by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which have been
collected into the New Testament, along with various letters of the apostle Paul. Now the burial
account is part of Mark’s source material for the story of Jesus’ suffering and death. This is a
very early source which is probably based on eyewitness testimony and which the commentator
Rudolf Pesch dates to within seven years of the crucifixion. Moreover, Paul also cites an
extremely early source for Jesus’ burial which most scholars date to within five years of Jesus’
crucifixion. Independent testimony to Jesus’ burial by Joseph is also found in the sources behind
Matthew and Luke and the Gospel of John, not to mention the extra-biblical Gospel of Peter.
Thus, we have the remarkable number of at least five independent sources for Jesus’ burial, some
of which are extraordinarily early.

This is using the bible to prove the bible, and is not allowed. These are not "five independent sources" and I like how Craig tosses out the idea that Mark is dated to within seven years of the crucifixion even though the oldest manuscript we have is decades after. It's more speculation that Mark can be dated to within seven years. But even this "fact' is not that hotly debated because if Jesus did happen to exist, then he obviously died at some point and, logically, would have been "buried" as well.

2. As a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention.

There was an understandable hostility in the early church toward the Jewish leaders. In Christian
eyes, they had engineered a judicial murder of Jesus. Thus, according to the late New Testament
scholar Raymond Brown, Jesus’ burial by Joseph is “very probable,” since it is “almost
inexplicable” why Christians would make up a story about a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is
right by Jesus.

This is a hilariously bad argument. Why would Christians make up a story where a Jewish Sanhedrist is so impressed with Jesus that he does a nice thing for him? Wow, I have no idea why they'd think that would help their cause. 

For these and other reasons, most New Testament critics concur that Jesus was buried by Joseph
of Arimathea in a tomb. According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University, the
burial of Jesus in the tomb is “one of the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus.”2

John A.T. Robinson was a former Anglican Bishop, so the appeal to authority here is not impressive. Robinson also made the claim that we could date the Gospels to before A.D. 64 because the writers seem to have no knowledge of the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. Well, except for that whole Jesus prophesying the destruction of the temple thing. Rather convenient, huh?

[Airyaman]

Quite. Using the bible as a valid historical document in showing that Jesus rose from the dead would be akin to believing Sherlock Holmes existed based on the books about him.

[subtleinspiration]

Don't bother folks. Here is the "evidence" as supplied by William Lane Craig: Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? A Debate between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman. Every bit of it uses the bible as "evidence". Been there, done that.

Fact #2: On the Sunday after the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.

Among the reasons which have led most scholars to this conclusion are the following:

1. The empty tomb is also multiply attested by independent, early sources.

Mark’s source didn’t end with the burial, but with the story of the empty tomb, which is tied to
the burial story verbally and grammatically. Moreover, Matthew and John have independent
sources about the empty tomb; it’s also mentioned in the sermons in the Acts of the Apostles
(2.29; 13.36); and it’s implied by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian church (I Cor. 15.4).
Thus, we have again multiple, early, independent attestation of the fact of the empty tomb.

Again, more with using the bible to prove the bible. There are no sources outside of the bible whatsoever. Don't you think if this had been the case that someone else, unconnected to the burgeoning Christian movement, would have noted it?

2. The tomb was discovered empty by women.

In patriarchal Jewish society the testimony of women was not highly regarded. In fact, the
Jewish historian Josephus says that women weren’t even permitted to serve as witnesses in a
Jewish court of law. Now in light of this fact, how remarkable it is that it is women who are the
discoverers of Jesus’ empty tomb. Any later legendary account would certainly have made male
disciples like Peter and John discover the empty tomb. The fact that it is women, rather than
men, who are the discoverers of the empty tomb is best explained by the fact that they were the
chief witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb, and the Gospel writers faithfully record what, for
them, was an awkward and embarrassing fact.

Funny, because they didn't believe the women.

I could go on, but I think enough has been said to indicate why, in the words of Jacob Kremer, an
Austrian specialist on the resurrection, “By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the
biblical statements concerning the empty tomb.”

I think someone who is considered a "specialist on the resurrection" is also a lame appeal to authority. That'd be like referencing someone's words because they were a "Top Ghost Hunter".

[subtleinspiration]

Don't bother folks. Here is the "evidence" as supplied by William Lane Craig: Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? A Debate between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman. Every bit of it uses the bible as "evidence". Been there, done that.

Fact #3: On different occasions and under various circumstances different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.

This is a fact which is virtually universally acknowledged by scholars, for the following reasons:

1. Paul’s list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection appearances guarantees that such
appearances occurred.

Paul tells us that Jesus appeared to his chief disciple Peter, then to the inner circle of disciples
known as the Twelve; then he appeared to a group of 500 disciples at once, then to his younger
brother James, who up to that time was apparently not a believer, then to all the apostles.
Finally, Paul adds, “he appeared also to me,” at the time when Paul was still a persecutor of the
early Jesus movement (I Cor. 15.5-8). Given the early date of Paul’s information as well as his
personal acquaintance with the people involved, these appearances cannot be dismissed as mere
legends.

All the individuals mentioned have reasons to want to see the Jesus movement become successful, and are thus not reliable. And none of those 500 other disciples are even named or went on to write about their experiences either. I could claim that I flew up in the air and that 500 people saw me, but how reliable would that be if my brother, my best friend, and my mother attested to it, but you could never find out the names of any of those other 500 people?

2. The appearance narratives in the Gospels provide multiple, independent attestation of the appearances.

For example, the appearance to Peter is attested by Luke and Paul; the appearance to the Twelve
is attested by Luke, John, and Paul; and the appearance to the women is attested by Matthew and
John. The appearance narratives span such a breadth of independent sources that it cannot be
reasonably denied that the earliest disciples did have such experiences. Thus, even the skeptical
German New Testament critic Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “It may be taken as historically
certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to
them as the risen Christ.”

This is simply a ludicrous argument and is not much different than my refutation of the first point. These are not "independent" sources. These are sources with reasons to want to see this religion succeed.

And as for Gerd Lüdemann...well...this.

[CutePuppy]

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf

Question for Dr.  Craig:  I am very interested in the probability equation you gave.  To say it’s probable that Jesus was resurrected, you must put numbers into that equation and get a answer greater than 0.5.  I am very interested in what the actual number was and the margin of error for it.  And how were the numbers for it determined? 

Answer from Dr.  Craig:  Thank you for that question!  Richard Swinburne, who’s a professor at Oxford University, has written a book on incarnation and resurrection in which he actually uses the probability calculus that I have just given.14 He comes up with an estimate of 0.97 for the resurrection of Jesus in terms of its probability, and you can look at his book for that.

How convenient that Craig didn't mention that Swinburne was the Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion at Oxford. Let's not pretend this guy actually knows what he's talking about.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/christ-the-logic/2005/07/18/1121538921893.html?oneclick=true

This conclusion was reached after a complex series of calculations. In simplified terms, it began with a single proposition: the probability was one in two that God exists.

Next, if God exists, the probability was one in two that he became incarnate. Further, there was a one in 10 probability that the gospels would report the life and resurrection of Jesus in the form they do.

What a loony!

http://evangelicalatheist.com/2005/07/19/97-chance-richard-swinburne-is-an-idiot/

[subtleinspiration]

Don't bother folks. Here is the "evidence" as supplied by William Lane Craig: Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? A Debate between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman. Every bit of it uses the bible as "evidence". Been there, done that.

Fact #4: The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.

Think of the situation the disciples faced following Jesus’ crucifixion:

1. Their leader was dead.

And Jewish Messianic expectations had no idea of a Messiah who, instead of triumphing over
Israel’s enemies, would be shamefully executed by them as a criminal.

All the more reason to claim that your particular Messiah had trumped death.

2. Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone’s rising from the dead to glory and
immortality before the general resurrection of the dead at the end of the world.

But Jesus wasn't just any man. His followers were claiming that he was the Son of God.

Nevertheless, the original disciples suddenly came to believe so strongly that God had raised
Jesus from the dead that they were willing to die for the truth of that belief.

The members of the Heaven's Gate cult killed themselves because they believed they would go up to meet the UFO in the tail of a comet. Jim Jones' followers drank the Kool-Aid. This is not unusual. It is also not confirmed that Jesus' disciples died for that belief.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh38ygMiY5I&feature=related[/youtube]

But then the obvious question arises: What in the world caused them to believe such an un-Jewish and outlandish
thing? Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University, muses, “Some sort of powerful, transformative experience is required to generate the sort of movement earliest Christianity was.”5 And N. T. Wright, an eminent British scholar, concludes, “That is why, as an historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him.”

Would Mr. Johnson also make the same claim about Islam? That it had to have a major tenet of it be true because of how successful it has been? How about Mormonism? Scientology?

Fran, these are your four facts, all ridiculous and easily refuted. Craig is either an intellectual moron or dishonest, and I can't see how any serious historical or textual scholar could take any of his points seriously.

[Fran]

sheesh louise.  Should I even continue?   I came on here to see for a quick look, and I can't believe the responses.  In tone or substance.   

Look folks... if you don't want me to continue.  Then just say so. I don't wan't to waste your time or mine.   

I'm not expecting anyone to be persuaded to make a paradigm shift in their basic beliefs.  It rarely happens.   It was difficult for Einstein as well and there is a name for this: The Planck phenomen.

But what I as hoping (maybe fruitlessly) that we could at least have a civil and interesting discussion.

so let me know folks... what do you want to do?

[subtleinspiration]

But what I as hoping (maybe fruitlessly) that we could at least have a civil and interesting discussion.

Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

Why don't you start trying to bolster your position instead of whining about the supposed lack of "civility".

[Petey]

Assuming that Jesus existed as the bible describes, and assuming those 4 "facts" (I agree with neither assumption, but will go along with them here for the sake of argument), then not only would a stolen body fit all 4 criteria, as suggested by Crocoduck, but so would a crucified Jesus who wasn't actually dead.

History is littered with stories of people being mistakenly buried alive and/or rising from the "dead" hours or days after they were buried.  That's where we get the origin for many of the stories about vampires, zombies, ghosts, etc.  Yet all of these accounts get passed off as the person never being fully dead in the first place.  What makes the Jesus story so special?  The spear in the side?  Please.  There is no account of checking for breathing or pulse.  The crucifixion lasted a suspiciously short amount of time (compared to the days that they usually lasted).  And John's story (the most fantastical of the bunch) is the only one which mentions the spear.

So using these 4 claims that you're trying to pass off as facts, we have now come up with 2 scenarios that explain things in a much more plausible manner than resurrection.

[subtleinspiration]

Assuming that Jesus existed as the bible describes, and assuming those 4 "facts" (I agree with neither assumption, but will go along with them here for the sake of argument), then not only would a stolen body fit all 4 criteria, as suggested by Crocoduck, but so would a crucified Jesus who wasn't actually dead.

And let's not forget that there are people out there who sincerely believe that Elvis Presley is still alive.

[jazzman]

sheesh louise.  Should I even continue?   I came on here to see for a quick look, and I can't believe the responses.  In tone or substance.   

Look folks... if you don't want me to continue.  Then just say so. I don't wan't to waste your time or mine.   

I'm not expecting anyone to be persuaded to make a paradigm shift in their basic beliefs.  It rarely happens.   It was difficult for Einstein as well and there is a name for this: The Planck phenomen.

But what I as hoping (maybe fruitlessly) that we could at least have a civil and interesting discussion.

so let me know folks... what do you want to do?

We want you to continue.  We want you to present your evidence, rather than simply claim to have evidence.

Do you understand what we're asking of you?

The best way for you to quell the disturbance is to present the SPECIFIC EVIDENCE you have for each of the four items you claim are facts.  You could do this in one post.  Why don't you do it?

Once you've done this, you'll have given us reasons to actually discuss it with you.  We may still disagree with you, but at least we'll know precisely what it is you have to offer.  That's the point at which an interesting discussion can begin, and it's all in your hands.  Please take advantage of it ... in your next post.  List each of your claimed facts and the evidence that demonstrates those are actually facts and not just unsupported assertions.  It should be fairly easy for you to assemble, assuming the evidence is at your fingertips.

Jazzman

[Inactive_1]

sheesh louise.  Should I even continue?   I came on here to see for a quick look, and I can't believe the responses.  In tone or substance.   

Look folks... if you don't want me to continue.  Then just say so. I don't wan't to waste your time or mine.   

I'm not expecting anyone to be persuaded to make a paradigm shift in their basic beliefs.  It rarely happens.   It was difficult for Einstein as well and there is a name for this: The Planck phenomen.

But what I as hoping (maybe fruitlessly) that we could at least have a civil and interesting discussion.

so let me know folks... what do you want to do?

They are analyzing the evidence as they find it until you present your case. As long as it's on topic then they can talk about it until you come back with evidence. I'll keep it on-topic, if you will present your documentation.

How long do you need?

[InvisiblePinkUnicorn]

so let me know folks... what do you want to do?

For the fourth or fifth time, I want you to make a claim and debate it with me.  See this thread for a good place for us to have a chat.

[Fran]

Thanks for those who did respond.  I feel better now.  As I said earlier, I have tomorrow off and will post what I hope is what everyone is looking for.  If i'm lucky, I might be able to do it this evening.

Thanks Petey... you and Crocoduck are analyzing the historical facts (claimed not by me, but which is the clear consensus of the majority of Biblical scholars... even those who do not believe in the Resurrection of Jesus) as these debates between highly intelligent non-believers and believers always go to.

take care.