Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?

[Airyaman]

Fran, will you be basically presenting the same "evidence" that WLC has in his debate with Ehrman? If so, there really is no need to waste your time. Every bit of that is using the bible to prove the bible. You've been around long enough to know that not many of us hold the bible to be a credible source of valid information.

[subtleinspiration]

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.

And I get the shaft yet again.

BTW, Fran, who is this "majority of Biblical scholars"? You have yet to name any names.

[Petey]

Fran, please stop referring to these claims as facts.  I'm playing along with those claims for the sake of this particular argument, but if this were another thread, I would dispute those claims just as much as I'm disputing resurrection in this one.

I've linked this video before, but if you think that the bible is historically accurate then you really should watch it...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSzQC1zKesU[/youtube]

[Cycle4Fun]

I have no problem setting the bar really low. I only need one eyewitness report.

That sure is a very low bar.  Maybe as I read the thread an eye witness report of the reserection will have been discovered.

[Ambassador Pony]

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

Is this a joke? You made an appeal to authority about points 2-4 that you referred to as "historical facts". You stated that they are historical facts (in caps!) based solely on what you say is a near unanimous consensus of "experts". I referred to another such consensus that you hold an opinion opposite to.

Here it is plainly, tits or GTFO on your "historical facts".

[Crocoduck]

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.

you are making a huge mistake from the get go-

these are not historical facts, you are getting your info from biblical scholars who do their research from a devotional perspective and not a historical perspective. there is no way any of the gospels can be used to establish any sort of factual evidence as they are all anonymous,  2 are not original works and they contradict each other... these are not reliable sources and anyone who claims otherwise has such a low of a standard for evidence we cannot take what they say seriously.

we have to disregard the post mortem accounts as we know for a fact that Mark's account is a forgery, and on top of that none of the accounts corroborate each other. there is no way this can be used as evidence.

also, the died for a lie argument fits my stolen body scenario as well. if one or two of the disciples, or their entourage (like Mark) took the body and the others were convinced he was resurrected they could have went to their deaths unknowingly dieing for a lie (just not theirs). i did a big write up on this a while back and it is too weak of an argument to even consider.

[PinkMilk]

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.

I reviewed the link to WLC's debate that was provided in a previous post.  I have to say that his arguments are not convincing in the least.  I think what I am looking for on here, and I think several others, are for you to post things you consider facts.  Remember that we are not counting the Bible as source for facts.  This being said, in order for you to begin your argument you must first provide evidence from other sources from the time that show these things to be facts.  As it was stated by the Mod, we are assuming that Jesus existed, so you do not need to provide facts of his existence, but providing another source that states he was crucified would be a good place to start.  Perhaps that should be among one of the first bits of evidence you provide, because if he was not crucified, then it is safe to say that story in the Bible is not accurate.

[essgeeskee]

This goes out to Jesus!

The ONLY man who "so called"  existed who has many people believing without a doubt that he was born of a virgin, walked on water and resurrected after death without any firsthand proof!

If I can get you Christians to think for a minute. Clear you heads first. I know that it may be hard for you to do, but try anyway please!

You've never seen anyone walk on water, yet you believe a man named Jesus did and you don't have proof.

You've never met anyone who was the product of a virgin, yet you believe a man named Jesus was and you don't have proof.

You've never seen anyone resurrect into the air after death, yet you believe that a man named Jesus did and you don't have proof.

Remember, evidence is not proof!!

What I'd like to know is why? Why do Christians believe this stuff to be true without proof, but if I told you that I walked on water, you would want proof? Do you guys want to get into heaven so bad that you would actually trick yourself into believing something that is completely unbelievable?

I have 12 guys sitting right here who saw me walk across a pool of water that was 12 feet deep yesterday? Do you believe me? Why not have faith that I'm telling you the truth? You have evidence because I told you that it is true and 12 guys saw me who are ready to write about it now! Would you believe it if I wrote about it in a book and titled the book, "Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth"?

[wheels5894]

Wonderful, essgeeskee! You must be the saviour of the world! how do I become a disciple?

More to the point, all the things you mention are things that happened where people potentially could see them. Heaven is another thing where there can be no evidence. How does one believe this when earthly events are so improbably?

[Ambassador Pony]

Essgee, I know your post was born more out of frustration at the sheer idiocy of any type of supernatural belief, but belief behaviour  has very clear origins.

FTR, a well organized, time refined and tested system of indoctrination. It's a product of primates with brains like ours. It's a very human thing. The systems for inculcating humans that we are stuck with provide the specifics we see in people like our theist visitors, but even without it, we'd have large portions of the population demonstrating some other manifestation of magical thinking.

[wheels5894]

Interesting you mentioning indoctrination, Pony, but I came across this in New Scientist magazine this week.

Religions owe their success to suffering martyrs

    * 27 May 2009 by Bob Holmes
    * Magazine issue 2710. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.

WHAT is the difference between Jesus Christ and Superman? The content of religions and popular tales is often similar, but only religions have martyrs, according to an analysis of behavioural evolution published this week.

When religious leaders make costly sacrifices for their beliefs, the argument goes, these acts add credibility to their professions of faith and help their beliefs to spread. If, on the other hand, no one is willing to make a significant sacrifice for a belief then observers - even young children - quickly pick up on this and withhold their own commitment. "Nobody takes a day off to worship Superman or gives money to the Superman Foundation," points out Joseph Henrich, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada.

The more costly the behaviour, the more likely it is to be sincere: few would willingly give their life for an ideal they did not believe in, and devotees who take vows of poverty or chastity are clearly putting their money where their mouth is. Such credibility-enhancing displays are even more effective if performed by a high-status individual such as a priest or other leader, says Henrich.

Once people believe, they are more likely to perform similar displays themselves. Henrich created a mathematical model to test his ideas and showed that this self-reinforcing loop can stabilise a system of beliefs and actions, and help them persist through many generations (Evolution and Human Behavior, DOI: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.03.005).

This dynamic helps explain why so many religions involve costly renunciations. For example, Henrich notes that the persecution of early Christians by Roman authorities may have spread Christian beliefs by allowing believers to be martyred for their faith - the ultimate credibility-enhancing display.

The principle applies to other social movements too. Studies of 19th-century utopian communes such as Hutterites and Shakers show that those making the strictest demands on their followers were most likely to persist, says Henrich. "You can see the changes in action. The number of those costly commitment rituals increases over time."

Henrich's analysis fills an important hole in our understanding of the rise of religions, says Richard Sosis, an anthropologist at the University of Connecticut in Storrs.

The hypothesis still needs to be tested, for example with lab experiments on belief transmission, and historical studies of religions. But if Henrich is right, churches that liberalise their behavioural codes may be sabotaging themselves by reducing their followers' commitment. This may explain why strict evangelical Christian churches are expanding in the US at the expense of mainstream denominations. "To be a member you've got to walk the walk and talk the talk," says Henrich. "And this transmits deeper faith to the children."

It may well explain how Scientology keeps in 'converts' as they have too make real sacrfices to stay in.

[Ambassador Pony]

I don't remember where I read it, but I think JW's have the most transient membership, people seem often to drift through it, skipping to other types of belief systems. This seems to run contrary to what the guy in the article says happens, since JW's seem to have a strict code.

The article talks about an interesting hypothesis, and that line deserves further study. 

[Fran]

Hello everyone... I hope you're all enjoying the weekend.  Anyone going to church this morning?  lol  J/k.

Okay... here we go.

In a bibliographical survey of over 2,200 publications on the resurrection in English, French, and German since 1975, Gary Habermas found that 75% of scholars accept the historicity of the discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb and that there is near universal agreement on the post-mortem appearances   (Gary Habermas, “Experience of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection,” (2006)
                  
Since New Testament critics do not simply confess these facts but rather acknowledge them on the strength of the historical evidence, I think it is fair to speak of them as established facts about Jesus that need to be explained, and that they have a degree of credibility comparable to other commonly accepted facts of ancient history.

The following is just a partial list of many of the scholars which were involved in the survey to ascertain what were accepted as the facts surrounding Jesus.  Some of the following have since passed away.

Marvin F. Cain ... Ron Cameron ... Bruce D. Chilton ... Kathleen E. Corley ... Wendy J. Cotter ... John Dominic Crossan ... Michael Goulder ... Don Cupitt ... Jon Daniels ... Jean Jacques D'Aoust ... Jon F. Dechow ... Arthur J. Dewey ... Joanna Dewey ... John Dillenberger ... William Doty ... Darrell J. Doughty ... Dennis C. Duling ... Rubén René Dupertuis ... Susan M. Elliott ... Robert T. Fortna ... Robert M. Fowler ... Robert W. Funk ... David Galston ... John Drane ... Lloyd Geering ... Jennifer Glancy ... James Goss ... Heinz Guenther ... Sakari Hakkinen ... Maurice Hamington ... Walter Harrelson ...  James D.G. Dunn ... Stephen L. Harris ... E.P. Sanders... Charles W. Hedrick ... James D. Hester ... C. M. Kempton Hewitt ... Jack A. Hill ... Ulrich Wilckens ... Julian V. Hills ... Richard Holloway ... Roy W. Hoover ... Benjamin J. Hubbard ... Michael L. Humphries ... Andries G. van Aarde ... Valerie A. Abrahamsen ... Martin L. Appelt  ... Karen Armstrong... William E. Arnal ... Richard L. Arthur ... Harold W. Attridge ... Robert Bater ... Joseph Bessler ... Edward F. Beutner ... Anthony Blasi ... Marcus Borg ... Willi Braun ... James R. Butts ...  Michael Martin ... Helmut Koester ... Margaret D. Hutaff ... Glenna S. Jackson ... Arland Jacobson ... Clayton N. Jefford ... Gregory C. Jenks ... Melanie Johnson-DeBaufre ... Bob Jones ... F. Stanley Jones ... Larry Kalajainen ... Perry V. Kea ... John C. Kelly ... William Doane Kelly ... Chan-Hie Kim ... Martin Hengel ... Karen L. King ... John S. Kloppenborg ... Ron Large ... Paul Alan Laughlin ... Nigel Leaves ... Margaret E. Lee ... Nina E. Livesey ... Davidson Loehr ... N.T. Wright... Sanford Lowe ... John Lown - Shelly Matthews ... Willie Marxsen ... Gerd Ludemann ... William Farmer ... Dennis R. MacDonald ... Brian Rice McCarthy ... Lane C. McGaughy ... Edward J. McMahon II ... Francis Macnab ... Loren Mack-Fisher ... Daniel Marguerat ... Marvin W. Meyer ... Darren J. N. Middleton ... J. Ramsey Michaels ... William R. Millar ... Michael Martin ... L. Bruce Miller ... Robert J. Miller ... Robert L'H. Miller ... Milton C. Moreland ... Winsome Munro ... Culver H. Nelson ... Rod Parrot ... Stephen J. Patterson ... Todd Penner ... John Meir ...Richard I. Pervo ... Joachim Jeremias ... Thomas E. Phillips ... Robert M. Price ... Anne Primavesi ... Jonathan L. Reed ... Howard Rice ... Vernon K. Robbins ... James M. Robinson ... Stan Rummel ... Marianne Sawicki ... Daryl D. Schmidt ... Oswald Schra ... Bernard Brandon Scott ... Andrew D. Scrimgeour ... Philip Sellew ... Chris Shea ... Thomas Sheehan ... Lou H. Silberman ... Daniel A. Smith ... Dennis ... Mahlon H. Smith ... Graydon Snyder ... John Shelby Spong ... John Staten ... Michael G. Steinhauser  ... Johann Strijdom ... Jon Sveinbjornsson ... Jarmo Tarkki ... W. Barnes Tatum ... Hal Taussig ... Barbara Thiering ... Joseph B. Tyso ... Leif E. Vaage ... James Veitch ... Paul Verhoeven ... Wesley Hiram Wachob ... William O. Walker ... Donna Wallace ... Robert L. Webb ... Theodore J. Weeden, Sr. ... James E. West ... John L. White ... L. Michael White ... Patricia Williams ... Walter Wink

The above is not close to being complete, and I am trying to get the full list of scholars and their publications for you.  I'm having to send away for the material so it might take a little time.  Most of the above are liberals who DO NOT believe in the Resurrection.

Most of the above scholars treat the gospels as fallible historical artifacts, containing both authentic and inauthentic material.  Therefore, as scholars and historians, they try to evaluate the Gospels using the same criteria critical historians typically use to evaluate ancient documents in general as they test the document's historical reliability.

Here are ten tests of historical reliability which are typically used:

1)...  Historians must ask of an ancient document, Do we possess copies of the work that are reasonably close to the original?

2)... historians must inquire into whether the author of the work INTENDED to communicate reliable history.  If there are literary signals that a work didn't intend to report reliable history, there are good grounds for doubting its ostensive historical claims.

3)... Historians are interested in determing whether an author was in a position to accurately record the history he or she clams to report.

4)... Historians attempt to discern the biases an author brought to his or her work and the extent to which this bias distorted the historical reporting.

5)... Historians typically investigate documents to determine whether they incorporate the kind of details and textual signals that tend to accompany reports that are rooted in eyewitness testimony.

6)... Historians are particularly interested in whether an ancient work incorporates material that is "self-damaging" - that is, material that works counter to any bias the author seems to have - and thus historically rooted material one might have expected the writer to leave out.

7)... Historians always want to know whether a document is self-consistent with other works that purport to report the same events as the document they are examining.  This is an especially important issue with regard to the Gospels, since here we have essentially the same story told from 4 different
perspecitives.

... Critical historians question whether the events recorded in an ancient work are intrinsically believable or unbelievable.  (remember... we are not talking about the Resurrection here... but the 4historical facts I brought up).

9)... Scholars typically attempt to discover whether there's any literary evidence that, while perhaps not reporting on all the same events as the document they're examing (as in the 7 criteria above), nevertheless provides information that impacts their assessment of that document.

10)... historians want to know if there are any archaeological findings that either confirm or stand in tension with claims made by the document they are examing.

Using these tests... as well as other tests like Form Criticism, textual critcism, etc, a large majority of the scholars agree on the 4 historical facts I've already mentioned.

Historical Fact #1...  The burial of Jesus.

There is nothing strange about this.  Most people die and most people are buried.

The location of Jesus' tomb was well known by all because His disciples told everyone what happened to His body, so if Jesus had not risen from the dead, if His body were yet in the tomb, this could have been easily checked out.  Both Jesus'  followers (who would suffer persecution for their faith) and the opponents of Jesus (who would want to falsify the Christian claim) would have a motive for checking this out.

No one distputes that the Christian church began in Jersualem just a few weeks after Jesus' crucifixion.  In fact, it exploded in growth.  And the content of the message that caused this explosion was that Jesus was the Messiah, the Lord of all, as was evidenced by His miracles and resurrection from the dead (this is their claim remember).   What makes this amazing is that Jesus is not some unknown figure in the distant past.  He was well known in Jerusalem.  He was put on trial in Jerusalem.  He was crucified in Jerusalem.  And He was buried in Jerusalem.  

The Gospels names names in connection with Jesus in Jerusalem.  Pilate.  Caephas.  The Sanhedrin and some of it's well-known members like  Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus and Gamliel.  Now if one is going to fabricate an account, one doesn't drop names of prominent people or institutions, people who can easily be cross-examined.  If Jesus was not buried in a tomb donated by Joseph of Arimathea, it could easily have been exposed as a lie, and stopped the explosive growth of the Christian church in Jerusalem so soon after Jesus' crucifixion.

The Sanhedrin was too prominent an institution in that Jewish society, and all of it's members were leading men of Judaism and too well-known to allow either fictitious persons to be placed on it, or false stories to be spread about one of its actual members being responsible for Jesus' burial... who was their enemy and whom they put on trial.

Finally, there is no motive for the disciples to fabricate this of Jesus' burial in Joseph's tomb.  They had nothing to gain and everything to lose by pin-pointing where Jesus was buried... if Jesus was not buried there.   Nor is there anything to lead use to believe that they were even disposed to fabricate such a story... or that hey had the sort of characters which would be capable of such an incredible frabrication that could be so easily checked out.  Nor is there anything to suggest that they could have successfully pulled such an incredible fabrication off, even if they had wanted to... because again, it could be so easily checked out.   To play it safe and give them more “wiggle room” to pull off a scam (lie, fabrication), the disciples could easily have said that Jesus was buried in some unknown place in a far away place.

Anway... this will do for starters.  Once we've gone over this Historical fact #1 to everyone's satisfication, we can then move onto the next 3.

Take care and thanks for your patience.


PS... can anyone tell me why my number eight (in the above liste) shows up as a yellow figure?

[wheels5894]

May I comment on one of the list. Michael Goulder? I was taught Greek by him and knew him for a while.

I find it hard to imagine a guy less likely to vote for the historicity of the Resurrection than him. Of course, he was a minister for a quite a long time but left the church and religion in the mid 80s and so I wonder when this survey was done. It could be quite old of course.

[Emily]

PS... can anyone tell me why my number eight (in the above liste) shows up as a yellow figure?

Because that's the longhand way of writing the little guy with the sunglasses.

[PinkMilk]

Hello everyone... I hope you're all enjoying the weekend.  Anyone going to church this morning?  lol  J/k.

Okay... here we go.

In a bibliographical survey of over 2,200 publications on the resurrection in English, French, and German since 1975, Gary Habermas found that 75% of scholars accept the historicity of the discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb and that there is near universal agreement on the post-mortem appearances   (Gary Habermas, “Experience of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection,” (2006)

First of all, Gary Habermas is an Evangelical Christian, so I would not consider anything he says to be unbiased.  It is important when you consider evidence that you consider bias.  Could you also please provide a link to this survey so that it may be reviewed by others?
                 

Since New Testament critics do not simply confess these facts but rather acknowledge them on the strength of the historical evidence, I think it is fair to speak of them as established facts about Jesus that need to be explained, and that they have a degree of credibility comparable to other commonly accepted facts of ancient history.

If it needs to be explained then it is not a fact. What are you stating to be facts of the NT?  I really think you've failed to understand that we are not going to accept the Bible as a source of historical information.  You must be able to provide evidence outside of the Bible that corroborates something in the Bible. I made the suggestion that you look for something that stated that Jesus was in fact crucified.  This would give us a good solid point to go from.  You can not assume what people will accept as evidence and you can not call it a fact till it has been proven by more than one source.

The following is just a partial list of many of the scholars which were involved in the survey to ascertain what were accepted as the facts surrounding Jesus.  Some of the following have since passed away.

Marvin F. Cain ...

Theologian

Ron Cameron ...

While I could not find what he was a scholar of, I did find several books by him that show he is predisposed to belief in these matters anyway.

Bruce D. Chilton ...

He's a reverend

Kathleen E. Corley ...

She is a Lutheran and teaches courses on Biblical study and Jesus

Wendy J. Cotter ...

She is one who has passed.  I found several articles written by her about the Bible.

John Dominic Crossan ...

Theologian, co-founder of the Westar Institute and the Jesus Seminar

Michael Goulder ...

Biblical scholar

Don Cupitt ...

Religious philosopher and Christian Theologian

Jon Daniels ...

The only Jon Daniels I was able to find that came close to fitting who I might be looking for is Jonathan Daniels an Episcopal seminarian, but he died in 65 and the study you said was done in 75 so I don't think this is him.

Jean Jacques D'Aoust ...

Professor of psychology and world religions and he was also a former Episcopalian priest

Jon F. Dechow ...

Theologian

Arthur J. Dewey ...

Prof. of Theology and a NT scholar and specialist on Historical Jesus

Joanna Dewey ...

Prof. of Biblical studies, specialist on the Gospel of Mark

John Dillenberger ...

Historian of science specializing in relations of religion and science

William Doty ...

Prof. of Religious studies with a focus in Biblical interpretation

Darrell J. Doughty ...

Prof. of NT

Dennis C. Duling ...

Prof. of religious studies and theology and frequent writer for Journal of Biblical Literature

Rubén René Dupertuis ...

Assistant Professor of Religion

Susan M. Elliott ...

Heavily participated in an urban youth ministry, her works also frequent the Journal of Biblical Literature, Prof. of Religious Studies

Robert T. Fortna ...

Prof. of Biblical studies

Robert M. Fowler ...

Prof. of Religion and chairperson to the department of religion at Baldwin-Wallace College (a university affiliated with the methodist church)

Robert W. Funk ...

Biblical scholar and co-founder of the Westar Institute (where many of these names have ties to) and the Jesus seminars (a group of people with religious related degrees who get together and use colored beads to vote on how they all feel about the historical view of Jesus)

David Galston ...

Ecumenical Chaplin and Ph.D. in Philosophy of religion

John Drane ...

Theologian

Lloyd Geering ...

Theologian and Prof. of religious studies

Jennifer Glancy ...

Prof. of Religious studies

James Goss ...

This actually was surprisingly a popular name and I was unable to find the one whom I feel was involved in this study, but I'm gonna guess they have studied religion in some shape or form

Heinz Guenther ...

Theologian

Sakari Hakkinen ...

Prof. of Biblical studies

Maurice Hamington ...

Ph.D. in Religion and Philosophy

Walter Harrelson ... 

Biblical scholar

James D.G. Dunn ...

Theologian and Professor of "Divinity"

Stephen L. Harris ...

Professor of Humanities and Religious studies

E.P. Sanders...

Prof. of Religion

Charles W. Hedrick ...

Professor of Religious Studies

James D. Hester ...

Theologian

C. M. Kempton Hewitt ...

Prof. of Biblical interpretation

Jack A. Hill ...

Associate Prof. of Religion

Ulrich Wilckens ...

NT scholar

Julian V. Hills ...

Associate Prof. of Theology

Richard Holloway ...

Theologian, formerly the Bishop of Edinburgh of the Scottish Episcopalian church which is a member of the Anglican Communion

Roy W. Hoover ...

Prof. of Biblical literature and religion

Benjamin J. Hubbard ...

Prof. of comparative religion

Michael L. Humphries ...

Theologian and associate prof. of classical and comparative literature

Andries G. van Aarde ...

Prof. and chairperson of the department of NT studies

Valerie A. Abrahamsen ...

Prof. of NT archeaology and member of Society of Biblical literature and Archaeological Institute of America

Martin L. Appelt  ...

I could not find information about his degree or studies, but he is a member of Westar Institute (I'm noticing a trend here)

Karen Armstrong...

Prof. of comparative religion

William E. Arnal ...

Religious studies

Richard L. Arthur ... Harold W. Attridge ... Robert Bater ... Joseph Bessler ... Edward F. Beutner ... Anthony Blasi ... Marcus Borg ... Willi Braun ... James R. Butts ...  Michael Martin ... Helmut Koester ... Margaret D. Hutaff ... Glenna S. Jackson ... Arland Jacobson ... Clayton N. Jefford ... Gregory C. Jenks ... Melanie Johnson-DeBaufre ... Bob Jones ... F. Stanley Jones ... Larry Kalajainen ... Perry V. Kea ... John C. Kelly ... William Doane Kelly ... Chan-Hie Kim ... Martin Hengel ... Karen L. King ... John S. Kloppenborg ... Ron Large ... Paul Alan Laughlin ... Nigel Leaves ... Margaret E. Lee ... Nina E. Livesey ... Davidson Loehr ... N.T. Wright... Sanford Lowe ... John Lown - Shelly Matthews ... Willie Marxsen ... Gerd Ludemann ... William Farmer ... Dennis R. MacDonald ... Brian Rice McCarthy ... Lane C. McGaughy ... Edward J. McMahon II ... Francis Macnab ... Loren Mack-Fisher ... Daniel Marguerat ... Marvin W. Meyer ... Darren J. N. Middleton ... J. Ramsey Michaels ... William R. Millar ... Michael Martin ... L. Bruce Miller ... Robert J. Miller ... Robert L'H. Miller ... Milton C. Moreland ... Winsome Munro ... Culver H. Nelson ... Rod Parrot ... Stephen J. Patterson ... Todd Penner ... John Meir ...Richard I. Pervo ... Joachim Jeremias ... Thomas E. Phillips ... Robert M. Price ... Anne Primavesi ... Jonathan L. Reed ... Howard Rice ... Vernon K. Robbins ... James M. Robinson ... Stan Rummel ... Marianne Sawicki ... Daryl D. Schmidt ... Oswald Schra ... Bernard Brandon Scott ... Andrew D. Scrimgeour ... Philip Sellew ... Chris Shea ... Thomas Sheehan ... Lou H. Silberman ... Daniel A. Smith ... Dennis ... Mahlon H. Smith ... Graydon Snyder ... John Shelby Spong ... John Staten ... Michael G. Steinhauser  ... Johann Strijdom ... Jon Sveinbjornsson ... Jarmo Tarkki ... W. Barnes Tatum ... Hal Taussig ... Barbara Thiering ... Joseph B. Tyso ... Leif E. Vaage ... James Veitch ... Paul Verhoeven ... Wesley Hiram Wachob ... William O. Walker ... Donna Wallace ... Robert L. Webb ... Theodore J. Weeden, Sr. ... James E. West ... John L. White ... L. Michael White ... Patricia Williams ... Walter Wink

At this point, I'd hope you get where I'm going with this.  As for the ones I looked up, most of them have ties with the Westar Institue, they are all scholars in a religious field, they all have ties to religious affiliations.  Most of them attended schools that are affiliated with one denomination or another. I would hardly consider any of these people to be an unbiased source of information.

The above is not close to being complete, and I am trying to get the full list of scholars and their publications for you.  I'm having to send away for the material so it might take a little time.  Most of the above are liberals who DO NOT believe in the Resurrection.

Actually that is not true at all.  A quick google search will tell you differently.  Names mean nothing.  What matters is the evidence.  Please don't waste time posting more of these names. Instead why don't you search for other sources of evidence outside of the Bible.

Most of the above scholars treat the gospels as fallible historical artifacts, containing both authentic and inauthentic material.  Therefore, as scholars and historians, they try to evaluate the Gospels using the same criteria critical historians typically use to evaluate ancient documents in general as they test the document's historical reliability.

Again, a quick google search says different, and their views do not matter.  What we are trying to do on this thread is have you provide evidence outside of the Bible that supports the resurrection of Jesus.  Please don't think that a long list of scholars names means anything, it doesn't. 

Here are ten tests of historical reliability which are typically used:

1)...  Historians must ask of an ancient document, Do we possess copies of the work that are reasonably close to the original?

2)... historians must inquire into whether the author of the work INTENDED to communicate reliable history.  If there are literary signals that a work didn't intend to report reliable history, there are good grounds for doubting its ostensive historical claims.

3)... Historians are interested in determing whether an author was in a position to accurately record the history he or she clams to report.

4)... Historians attempt to discern the biases an author brought to his or her work and the extent to which this bias distorted the historical reporting.

5)... Historians typically investigate documents to determine whether they incorporate the kind of details and textual signals that tend to accompany reports that are rooted in eyewitness testimony.

6)... Historians are particularly interested in whether an ancient work incorporates material that is "self-damaging" - that is, material that works counter to any bias the author seems to have - and thus historically rooted material one might have expected the writer to leave out.

7)... Historians always want to know whether a document is self-consistent with other works that purport to report the same events as the document they are examining.  This is an especially important issue with regard to the Gospels, since here we have essentially the same story told from 4 different
perspecitives.

... Critical historians question whether the events recorded in an ancient work are intrinsically believable or unbelievable.  (remember... we are not talking about the Resurrection here... but the 4historical facts I brought up).

9)... Scholars typically attempt to discover whether there's any literary evidence that, while perhaps not reporting on all the same events as the document they're examing (as in the 7 criteria above), nevertheless provides information that impacts their assessment of that document.

10)... historians want to know if there are any archaeological findings that either confirm or stand in tension with claims made by the document they are examing.

I think those are great things to consider when you are looking at ancient documents. 

Using these tests... as well as other tests like Form Criticism, textual critcism, etc, a large majority of the scholars agree on the 4 historical facts I've already mentioned.

I don't doubt that your long list of scholars probably does agree. However, it does not matter what others have accepted as historical facts.  I personally do not accept those to be historical facts and I feel that most people will agree with me on that.  Provide the evidence that these scholars were presented with that they were able to run through your ten tests and allow us to make that decision.  Again, we are not determining the stance of others, but trying to examine evidence ourselves.

Historical Fact #1...  The burial of Jesus.

There is nothing strange about this.  Most people die and most people are buried.

Jesus wasn't buried, he was placed in a tomb.  But that incongruity aside, I think that if you found strong evidence showing he was crucified and buried that it would help your case later on when you try to provide evidence of his resurrection.  I'm honestly saying this to help you out.

The location of Jesus' tomb was well known by all because His disciples told everyone what happened to His body, so if Jesus had not risen from the dead, if His body were yet in the tomb, this could have been easily checked out.  Both Jesus'  followers (who would suffer persecution for their faith) and the
opponents of Jesus (who would want to falsify the Christian claim) would have a motive for checking this out.

Provide sources outside of the Bible that state the tomb where he was buried was known by his followers, show documentation that shows that anyone checked to make sure his body was placed in the tomb and that they checked back to make sure the body was still there.  Most people who die and are buried (or placed in a tomb) aren't checked on to make sure they're still there.

No one distputes that the Christian church began in Jersualem just a few weeks after Jesus' crucifixion.

Actually the first Christian church that we know of was in England and is estimated to have been approximately 50 years after Jesus' ascension allegedly took place. Did people believe in Christianity after this allegedly occurred? Maybe, but you need to provide evidence that shows this, and not just state things.  Provide evidence for the claims you make. 

  In fact, it exploded in growth.  And the content of the message that caused this explosion was that Jesus was the Messiah, the Lord of all, as was evidenced by His miracles and resurrection from the dead (this is their claim remember).   What makes this amazing is that Jesus is not some unknown figure in the distant past.  He was well known in Jerusalem.  He was put on trial in Jerusalem.  He was crucified in Jerusalem.  And He was buried in Jerusalem. 

Again, provide evidence that shows that Christianity exploded. As far as my historical knowledge of the time period goes, this is not the case.  You can sit here and make claims all day, but provide the sources for this information, provide the evidence. If you are not just making statements to try to prove your point then this should be no problem to find your evidence.

The Gospels names names in connection with Jesus in Jerusalem.  Pilate.  Caephas.  The Sanhedrin and some of it's well-known members like  Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus and Gamliel.  Now if one is going to fabricate an account, one doesn't drop names of prominent people or institutions, people who can easily be cross-examined.  If Jesus was not buried in a tomb donated by Joseph of Arimathea, it could easily have been exposed as a lie, and stopped the explosive growth of the Christian church in Jerusalem so soon after Jesus' crucifixion.

Again show the proof outside of the Bible that states these people as prominent people during that time period.  There are lots of inconsistencies with the Bible, but it doesn't stop people from believing it now, why should that have stopped people back then when they didn't have the scientific knowledge and explanations of things that we do now?

The Sanhedrin was too prominent an institution in that Jewish society, and all of it's members were leading men of Judaism and too well-known to allow either fictitious persons to be placed on it, or false stories to be spread about one of its actual members being responsible for Jesus' burial... who was their enemy and whom they put on trial.

-EVIDENCE-

Finally, there is no motive for the disciples to fabricate this of Jesus' burial in Joseph's tomb.  They had nothing to gain and everything to lose by pin-pointing where Jesus was buried... if Jesus was not buried there.   Nor is there anything to lead use to believe that they were even disposed to fabricate such a story... or that hey had the sort of characters which would be capable of such an incredible frabrication that could be so easily checked out.  Nor is there anything to suggest that they could have successfully pulled such an incredible fabrication off, even if they had wanted to... because again, it could be so easily checked out.   To play it safe and give them more “wiggle room” to pull off a scam (lie, fabrication), the disciples could easily have said that Jesus was buried in some unknown place in a far away place.

-EVIDENCE-
Are you getting an idea of what I'm looking for?  Provide evidence for the things you say.  Without evidence what you say means nothing.

PS... can anyone tell me why my number eight (in the above liste) shows up as a yellow figure?

Because the buttons for the face with glasses is an 8 followed by ).  When you put them together in your list it ended up resulting in the smiley face.  see

[Ambassador Pony]

Degree in divinity / theology = degree in teletubby anatomy

They study pretend, and I am supposed to take them seriously?

[Fran]

May I comment on one of the list. Michael Goulder? I was taught Greek by him and knew him for a while.

I find it hard to imagine a guy less likely to vote for the historicity of the Resurrection than him. Of course, he was a minister for a quite a long time but left the church and religion in the mid 80s and so I wonder when this survey was done. It could be quite old of course.

I wrote:
Most of the above are liberals who DO NOT believe in the Resurrection.

That was the point.  The debate is over what the 4 historical facts mean.

[Ambassador Pony]

Liberals?

Edit: What's a liberal? Please define.

[PinkMilk]

Fran,
Rather than say that these are people who likely not to believe in the resurrection of Jesus and listing their names, why not look for what evidence they were presented with.  That would be the best place to start. I know I personally do not wish to hear you restate a debate.  For instance, we may feel differently than those who first were presented did. 

[Airyaman]

Fran, will you be basically presenting the same "evidence" that WLC has in his debate with Ehrman? If so, there really is no need to waste your time. Every bit of that is using the bible to prove the bible. You've been around long enough to know that not many of us hold the bible to be a credible source of valid information.

Did you miss this Fran? Your long, drawn out post today was exactly this. Most of us have read the bible. We do not take it as historical, even if some theologians do. I'm sure we can find many Muslim theologians who view the Koran as historically accurate as well, hmm?

[screwtape]

this one goes out to Fran.

[jazzman]

Fran, I don't think you're paying attention to what we've asked you to do.

I see how you're trying to gain a foothold by telling us that many scholars who reject the resurrection of Jesus at least accept that Jesus existed.  But that's not the way to demonstrate that Jesus was, indeed, resurrected from the dead.

The appeal to scholarly acceptance for Jesus' existence is not a legitimate way to prove that Jesus was resurrected, since these same scholars might also accept the existence of Alexander the Great but not the claim that Alexander was a god. 

You need to offer the evidence that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.  You can't do that by telling us that some number of scholars believe it to be true.  You need to present to us the actual evidence that causes some people and scholars to believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, and is, therefore, the Son of the God you worship.

What evidence do you have?

Jazzman

[Inactive_1]

Fran,

While trying to moderate, I'm interested in the answer to the question below, and I've asked you several times. Perhaps you missed it? I think it's going to play a big part in this debate. It seems that the most miraculous claim possible can be trusted to be true using historical text records if you can ascertain that a god exists from them (in the case we're talking about now). So that being the case, it seems that many less lofty but odd claims can be trusted to be true also using historical text artifacts (dragons, ghosts, fairies, etc.), but I don't want to put words in your mouth. Can you answer it for us from your point of view please for the record?

Thanks.

"We need to see the evidence, but also we need to decide if any type of miraculous claim or unreasonable claim can be trusted to be valid using only written historical accounts of people without remaining physical evidence. At what point do written historical accounts fail to reliably justify a belief in the claims they support, i.e. UFOs, rising from the dead, demons, dragons and so forth. This is an important part of the debate."

[bikerbabe]

How do you prove a guy rose from the dead when you cannot even prove he existed?

[PinkMilk]

That is why we have decided to say for the sake of this argument that we will assume there really was a man named Jesus who lived during the time period referred to in the Bible.  That being said, the only thing are we saying for the sake of this argument is that he existed, we are not saying he was the son of God, we are not saying he performed miracles, and we are not saying that he rose from the dead.  These are the things that Fran must provide evidence for.  However he has yet to provide any evidence for this issue, and is merely arguing what a long list of theologians and Biblical scholars think.  I think that based on what Admin1 posted that we are going back a step in order to gain understanding as to what we can all agree would be valid and enough evidence for the Bible's claims (which are Fran's claims for the sake of this argument).  It may be that there is no evidence that would prove beyond reason that the claims could be true.

Anyways, point was to catch you up a bit.  For the sake of this thread we are assuming that there was in fact a man named Jesus.

[Inactive_1]

That is why we have decided to say for the sake of this argument that we will assume there really was a man named Jesus who lived during the time period referred to in the Bible. 

Correct.

I think that based on what Admin1 posted that we are going back a step in order to gain understanding as to what we can all agree would be valid and enough evidence for the Bible's claims (which are Fran's claims for the sake of this argument).  It may be that there is no evidence that would prove beyond reason that the claims could be true.

It's going to come into play in a big way, which is why I asked several times already. We need to get both sides positions on it now, and reasons why, so we aren't surprised later. I need Fran's answer, and I need the other side's answer, maybe you can provide the skeptic's answer PinkMilk? Then we need Fran's position on the issue.

Thanks.

"We need to see the evidence, but also we need to decide if any type of miraculous claim or unreasonable claim can be trusted to be valid using only written historical accounts of people without remaining physical evidence. At what point do written historical accounts fail to reliably justify a belief in the claims they support, i.e. UFOs, rising from the dead, demons, dragons and so forth. This is an important part of the debate."

[Fran]

Hello Jazzman...

Fran, I don't think you're paying attention to what we've asked you to do.

Sorry to beg differently, but I have paid attention and (in my eyes anyway), I'm doing what I've been asked to do.  I can't help but wonder if it is you that is not paying attention to what I'm doing.   Sorry if that comes across as uncourteous and impolite.  If it does, then please forgive me.

I see how you're trying to gain a foothold by telling us that many scholars who reject the resurrection of Jesus at least accept that Jesus existed.  But that's not the way to demonstrate that Jesus was, indeed, resurrected from the dead.

I think it is. As I said before, I'm building a case based on deduction.. or "Inference to the best explaination".

The appeal to scholarly acceptance for Jesus' existence is not a legitimate way to prove that Jesus was resurrected, since these same scholars might also accept the existence of Alexander the Great but not the claim that Alexander was a god.

I never claimed it was quid pro quo as you seem to think I am maintaining..  I'm constructing my case based on deduction... or "Inference to the best explaination".  For me, logic is always a legitmate way to demonstrate or "prove" something.

You need to offer the evidence that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

I've been doing this all along, one premise... one plank... one step... one fact at a time. And then from those premises/planks/steps/facts, I'm looking for an "Inference to the best explaination"... which I believe the Resurrection is.

You can't do that by telling us that some number of scholars believe it to be true.

I'm not, nor have i ever appealed to those scholars who believe that the Resurrection is true to "prove that the Resurrection is true".

You need to present to us the actual evidence that causes some people and scholars to believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, and is, therefore, the Son of the God you worship.

I have been... thru deduction... thrue an "Inference to the best explaination".


Take care... and thanks for joining the conversation.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



 Hello Admin 1...

Fran,

While trying to moderate, I'm interested in the answer to the question below, and I've asked you several times. Perhaps you missed it? I think it's going to play a big part in this debate. It seems that the most miraculous claim possible can be trusted to be true using historical text records if you can ascertain that a god exists from them (in the case we're talking about now). So that being the case, it seems that many less lofty but odd claims can be trusted to be true also using historical text artifacts (dragons, ghosts, fairies, etc.), but I don't want to put words in your mouth. Can you answer it for us from your point of view please for the record?

Thanks.

"We need to see the evidence, but also we need to decide if any type of miraculous claim or unreasonable claim can be trusted to be valid using only written historical accounts of people without remaining physical evidence. At what point do written historical accounts fail to reliably justify a belief in the claims they support, i.e. UFOs, rising from the dead, demons, dragons and so forth. This is an important part of the debate."[/[/i][/color]

I firmly believe that you must look for naturalistic explanations first at all times.  Absolutely.  But when after an exhaustive search and analysis of facts there is no good natural explanation forthcoming, then one must (never uncritically BTw) be open minded enough (even if it means a major paradigm shift in our thinking, as we saw with Einstein) to be open to a supernatural possibility or that God had a hand in it.

Now granted, there is no rational calculus or number theory that we can use to determine when that point or threshold is reached.  So every case must be taken and weighed singularly and separately and on its own merits.  

And that is why I don't have to contend with UFO's etc.  I'm dealing presently with the question of whether Jesus' Ressurection occured and whether that threshold (when we need to consider alternative explanation outside of just naturalistic explanation) has been met yet.  The only we can do that is look at the facts in the case and see what kinds of explanation we can come with to explain them.

And I believe the four historical facts that we are presently debating, need to be explained.  First naturally. Then when that fails to yield a good explanation, then we need to be intellectually honest and prepared to think out of the box.  

I'm not saying, and I've never said that we can't find SOME kind of natural explanation for those historical facts... but I keep condtending that any naturalistic explanation that has so far been offered by highly intelligent and rational non-believers, is less plausable and less intellectually satisfying than the possibility that the Resurrection actually occured.  It fits better... logicaly and rationally and intellectually.  In my opinion anyway.


Take care

I'll have to wait until this evening to reply more.  Especially to some of Pink's assertions.
 

[Crocoduck]

And I believe the four historical facts that we are presently debating, need to be explained.  First naturally. Then when that fails to yield a good explanation, then we need to be intellectually honest and prepared to think out of the box. 

they have all had good natural explanations offered, now- be intellectually honest.

but I keep condtending that any naturalistic explanation that has so far been offered by highly intelligent and rational non-believers, is less plausable and less intellectually satisfying than the possibility that the Resurrection actually occured.

and you are still wrong. resurrection is in no way more plausible that any explanation offered.

the stolen body/hoax theory posted pages ago hits all of your points and is infinitely more plausible that someone just coming back to life and walking around.

you are just wasting time dragging this on.