Reasonable belief in the resurrection?

[juvenissun]

It doesn't make sense to me that either would be applicable in this case at all, but you said you have a logical proof for the resurrection so I'd like to see that.

What I was asking for was a strong historical argument demonstrating that Jesus very likely rose from the dead.

There are many logical ones.
A simple one is:

God is able to resurrect.
Jesus says He is God,
So Jesus resurrected.

This simple argument WILL NOT apply to all your other examples.

 

[bhsmte]

There are many logical ones.
A simple one is:

God is able to resurrect.
Jesus says He is God,
So Jesus resurrected.

This simple argument WILL NOT apply to all your other examples.

Have any more assumptions?

 

[bhsmte]

It doesn't make sense to me that either would be applicable in this case at all, but you said you have a logical proof for the resurrection so I'd like to see that.

What I was asking for was a strong historical argument demonstrating that Jesus very likely rose from the dead.

There isn't a legit NT historian out there, that will claim using the historical method, they can claim the resurrection happened.

By nature, historians deal in; the most likely explanation of what happened in the past and that never includes, claimed miracles.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

There are many logical ones.
A simple one is:

God is able to resurrect.
Jesus says He is God,
So Jesus resurrected.

This simple argument WILL NOT apply to all your other examples.

If I claim to be God, will I be resurrected?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

There isn't a legit NT historian out there, that will claim using the historical method, they can claim the resurrection happened.

By nature, historians deal in; the most likely explanation of what happened in the past and that never includes, claimed miracles.

You are quite right. The resurrection will never be considered historical fact. I just want a convincing argument based on facts.

 

[juvenissun]

Have any more assumptions?

Why?

 

[juvenissun]

If I claim to be God, will I be resurrected?

Irrelevant.
The logic proof is correct. You are talking something not related to the proof.

 

[Soyeong]

I read everything that everyone says to me. I think it's you who didn't read what I had to say. Again, imagine the following line of questioning:

To someone who is biased towards a certain idea, things which seem relevant but aren't can still serve as confirmation of the idea's validity. Someone biased towards the resurrection would see little difference between the above scenario and a different line of questioning wherein the inquirer says, "Recant your faith and go free or you will be brutally tortured and executed." Both scenarios would be described as the disciple "dying for this faith." But in the scenario I present, did he really die for his faith? Isn't it possible that this hypothetical disciple could've been preaching the gospel while it was safe to do so, and then ceased when he saw other disciples being executed, yet was still arrested for his reputation? I don't know if the ancient world knew or cared about the fact that laws should not be applied retroactively. This is a very conceivable scenario in which the resurrection is fully known to be a lie, and all of the disciples' behavior is easily explainable without any miracles.

Again, for the third time, the apostles had the opportunity to recant long before any sort of recant or die scenario, so focusing on that is missing the point. While it's possible one of them could have recanted and been killed anyway because of their reputation, that is not significantly different, and there is no evidence for that.

Any reasonable person must admit that the resurrection is not a fact, but rather a conclusion (just like how evolution is not a fact, but rather a conclusion). In the scenario laid out above, I don't contradict any of the facts, yet I do present a case where the conclusion is that Jesus did not rise from the dead. When two scenarios are pitted against each other, and one of them argues for the occurrence of a miracle the likes of which have never been seen before or since, then by default the other scenario is better.

I recommend reading Mike Licona's The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, where he examines what can be said about the resurrection, speaking as a historian. He takes a number of steps to identify and reduce the influence of his own biases.

With regards to Joseph Smith, I appreciate that you investigated the circumstances of his death. That was my entire point. Like you, I don't think his martyr is enough to convince any reasonable person that his testimony was genuine. If you apply the same level of scrutiny to your own beliefs, you will see there are simply so few facts on this issue that belief can only stem from faith, not from reason. Faith will lead you to Christianity, and reason will lead you to atheism. It is only a matter of which of the two you value higher.

I did so in contrast with my own beliefs to show you how they were different. After examining the historicity of the resurrection, I'd have to disagree. Faith is not an epistemology or something that you use to determine what is true independently from reason, but rather faith is the will to keep one's mind focused on what reason has discovered to it.

 

[Sketcher]

You are missing the point. I'm asking for eyewitnesses who were given the chance to recant. No eyewitness of Jesus lived until the beginning of Trajan's reign, let alone the third century.

And I gave you the pattern the Romans generally followed in persecuting the Christians. Being as Nero was the first emperor to persecute Christians, it is reasonable to believe that he started this pattern. You're claiming otherwise, without any evidence. What's more, you're claiming that the disciples recanted under torture later, without any evidence.

Or you let him write and simply read the letters without delivering them.

Possible, but you don't necessarily find out the safehouses that way, or all of the leaders that are named.

Again, I don't care about what happened to Stephen. He is not an eyewitness because what he saw was not visible to other people at the same event. Read my first paragraph in the OP.

You seem to be missing my point in bringing him up. There were two main persecutors of Christians in the first century - Romans and Jews. Stephen's stoning is an example of persecution by Jews, so by looking at that, we can have a better idea of how they treated other Christians they persecuted - including James, the Lord's brother, who was an eyewitness to the Resurrection.

Fact: we don't know the circumstances of their deaths. We don't have details on why they were arrested or executed.

If you don't know, why are you carrying on as though you believe they cracked? If you don't believe they cracked, then why are you taking this position in the first place?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

God is able to resurrect.
Jesus says He is God,
So Jesus resurrected.

If I claim to be God, will I be resurrected?

Irrelevant.
The logic proof is correct. You are talking something not related to the proof.

What did I do that is incorrect? By your own argument, Jesus didn't have to do anything more than claim to be God.

Again, for the third time, the apostles had the opportunity to recant long before any sort of recant or die scenario, so focusing on that is missing the point. While it's possible one of them could have recanted and been killed anyway because of their reputation, that is not significantly different, and there is no evidence for that.

But why would they recant if they are not aware of any danger?

I have already laid out a sequence of events that is very possible and not contradicting any known facts:

1.) Rome allowed freedom of religion and worship of any god with the stipulation that one must also worship Roman gods. Do you contest this?
2.) Conjecture: The Christians teach Christianity and contradict Roman theology.
3.) Conjecture: The Romans become aware of this and begin to arrest and interrogate Christians.
4.) Conjecture: The line of questioning in these interrogations precludes the possibility of recanting and going free (explained in the OP).
5.) Conjecture: The remaining Christians see these executions and cease preaching, but are still prosecuted for sedition because they had been previously contradicting Roman theology.

There is not a single known fact about the early church I've contradicted here. This story is entirely plausible, and does not require Jesus to have been risen from the dead. The Christians, in this scenario, were not "transformed" but rather they wanted to honor their fallen hero by passing on his teachings. By the time they found out that they had crossed the line, it was too late.

My only question for you is this: Can you lay out a sequence of events that is not conjecture? Doing so requires you to cite documented sources.

I'm not claiming that I've contradicted the resurrection claim here. My claim is that there is no evidence to support my side or your side, and so it is unreasonable to conclude that a miracle occurred. Therefore belief in the resurrection is not based on reason at all, but entirely on faith.

I recommend reading Mike Licona's The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, where he examines what can be said about the resurrection, speaking as a historian. He takes a number of steps to identify and reduce the influence of his own biases.

I've spoken directly with Mike Licona and he was too busy to engage me, so he deferred me to his son in law, Nick Peters. In my extensive conversations with him he offered only one thing of substance on this issue: the ancient world as an honor/shame society, and new religions were shameful, so the fact that the Christians were willing to be shamed in creating their new religion was likely due to the fact that their claims were true. I find this claim to be quite weak because the apostles had honorable status within their Christian subculture, so even if they were generally regarded as shameful outside the church they still had their own community wherein they were revered.

We covered many topics, and he had expressed to me that he believed the Bible was contradiction-free but that it contained transcriber errors; in my last correspondence to him, I laid out a clear-cut Bible contradiction that is not the result of a transcriber error, and his only response in the last few weeks has been that he has suddenly encountered a family emergency and that he'd get back to me as soon as he could. Keep in mind he'd generally been replying inside of 24 hours, and by now it's been several weeks.

I did so in contrast with my own beliefs to show you how they were different. After examining the historicity of the resurrection, I'd have to disagree. Faith is not an epistemology or something that you use to determine what is true independently from reason, but rather faith is the will to keep one's mind focused on what reason has discovered to it.

Historicity of the resurrection? What evidence do you actually have? Let's examine it.

Do you have eyewitness accounts? Yes, but they are given to us second-hand, and decades after the fact.

Do you have an empty tomb? No, there is no record of anyone visiting the tomb after Easter Sunday. Therefore no one external to the eyewitnesses confirmed that the tomb was empty. Since the bare minimum of a resurrection claim is an empty grave, and since no one apart from the eyewitnesses claimed to have seen the empty tomb, the empty tomb is not an additional piece of evidence but rather a necessary component of the eyewitness testimony.

Do you have the disciples' lives being transformed? Your knee-jerk reaction will be, "Of course!" Well, can you elaborate? The only way we can know that their lives were transformed is by their works. What did they do? They started churches. (Anyone can do that - the Buddhists started a religion and propped up monasteries in honor of one man whom they believed to be a god.) What did the apostles do when they were persecuted? Careful when you answer that, because apart from the apostles being martyred, what do you actually know about the circumstances of their deaths? What can you provide me along the lines of documented facts? I'm not interested in the general hearsay that you've gotten from your church because I have been lied to by all the churches I've been to - they will specifically tell you that the eyewitness apostles willfully refused to recant and go free, but this is simply a lie because there is no documentation of this anywhere in the world.

Perhaps "lie" is a strong accusation. I think the notion of faith has tinted the Christian culture to the point that no one is peer-reviewed. Facts are not cross-checked or researched. Claims can be made based on nothing. And now we find ourselves believing in a resurrection based on historical evidence that is flimsy at best.

Or is there another piece of evidence that I'm missing?

If the only piece of evidence that withstands scrutiny is second-hand, decades-old eyewitness testimony, then do we really have enough to conclude that a miracle occurred?

If I am mistaken in my analysis of the disciples' transformation, then please provide documented facts on this matter.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

And I gave you the pattern the Romans generally followed in persecuting the Christians. Being as Nero was the first emperor to persecute Christians, it is reasonable to believe that he started this pattern.

I already explained to you that policies can change abruptly when you transfer power from one emperor to another. You have done nothing to address this point; in debate, that is commonly understood as an admission that your opponent is right. Therefore I am confused on why you are persisting with this topic that I have already refuted.

You're claiming otherwise, without any evidence. What's more, you're claiming that the disciples recanted under torture later, without any evidence.

I am not claiming anything. I am positing a sequence of events as being plausible. You are right, though - I don't have any evidence. But neither do you. In the absence of evidence, we should withhold a conclusion on the matter. Despite this, you accept the resurrection of Jesus. The truth of the matter is that you have zero facts on the important details of the eyewitness martyrs. We know that James died by the sword, Thomas by the spear, or Peter by inverted crucifixion, but we do not know a single detail about their murders or trials. Not a single detail whatsoever. If you can find something in writing, instead of just regurgitating something that your pastor told you, then I'm all ears.

Possible, but you don't necessarily find out the safehouses that way, or all of the leaders that are named.

How does that even make sense? Paul has to tell them where to deliver the letter. What is it that you're suggesting? The Romans left the letters at a dead drop? They still could have simply left guards to ambush the Christians that retrieve the letter.

In no sense is your position conceivable.

You seem to be missing my point in bringing him up. There were two main persecutors of Christians in the first century - Romans and Jews. Stephen's stoning is an example of persecution by Jews, so by looking at that, we can have a better idea of how they treated other Christians they persecuted - including James, the Lord's brother, who was an eyewitness to the Resurrection.

And what is the point? It wasn't just the Romans that were after the Christians, but also the Jews? What is the conclusion of this point? Also, you seem to have missed this paragraph from the OP:

As I was being raised Christian, I was led to believe that the eyewitness apostles willfully died for their testimony and refused the opportunity to recant and go free. This is very powerful testimony, much more powerful than that of the 9/11 hijackers because those hijackers never professed first-hand knowledge of Islam.

I don't care about Stephen because he was not an eyewitness in any physical sense. What he saw was not seen by the others present at the event.

If you don't know, why are you carrying on as though you believe they cracked? If you don't believe they cracked, then why are you taking this position in the first place?

Again, you don't seem to have read the OP. Because we don't know the line of questioning, we don't know whether or not recanting is even related to the situation at all:

I always imagined a Roman saying, "Recant your faith or you will be tortured and executed," but the line of questioning could've just as easily been something along the lines of, "You were preaching the gospel, weren't you? Deny this, and you'll be tortured until you admit to it. You will be executed at the end regardless of what you say." In either case, it would be recorded that the disciple "died for his faith."

 

[Ana the Ist]

What did I do that is incorrect? By your own argument, Jesus didn't have to do anything more than claim to be God.





But why would they recant if they are not aware of any danger?

I have already laid out a sequence of events that is very possible and not contradicting any known facts:

1.) Rome allowed freedom of religion and worship of any god with the stipulation that one must also worship Roman gods. Do you contest this?
2.) Conjecture: The Christians teach Christianity and contradict Roman theology.
3.) Conjecture: The Romans become aware of this and begin to arrest and interrogate Christians.
4.) Conjecture: The line of questioning in these interrogations precludes the possibility of recanting and going free (explained in the OP).
5.) Conjecture: The remaining Christians see these executions and cease preaching, but are still prosecuted for sedition because they had been previously contradicting Roman theology.

There is not a single known fact about the early church I've contradicted here. This story is entirely plausible, and does not require Jesus to have been risen from the dead. The Christians, in this scenario, were not "transformed" but rather they wanted to honor their fallen hero by passing on his teachings. By the time they found out that they had crossed the line, it was too late.

My only question for you is this: Can you lay out a sequence of events that is not conjecture? Doing so requires you to cite documented sources.

I'm not claiming that I've contradicted the resurrection claim here. My claim is that there is no evidence to support my side or your side, and so it is unreasonable to conclude that a miracle occurred. Therefore belief in the resurrection is not based on reason at all, but entirely on faith.




I've spoken directly with Mike Licona and he was too busy to engage me, so he deferred me to his son in law, Nick Peters. In my extensive conversations with him he offered only one thing of substance on this issue: the ancient world as an honor/shame society, and new religions were shameful, so the fact that the Christians were willing to be shamed in creating their new religion was likely due to the fact that their claims were true. I find this claim to be quite weak because the apostles had honorable status within their Christian subculture, so even if they were generally regarded as shameful outside the church they still had their own community wherein they were revered.

We covered many topics, and he had expressed to me that he believed the Bible was contradiction-free but that it contained transcriber errors; in my last correspondence to him, I laid out a clear-cut Bible contradiction that is not the result of a transcriber error, and his only response in the last few weeks has been that he has suddenly encountered a family emergency and that he'd get back to me as soon as he could. Keep in mind he'd generally been replying inside of 24 hours, and by now it's been several weeks.




Historicity of the resurrection? What evidence do you actually have? Let's examine it.

Do you have eyewitness accounts? Yes, but they are given to us second-hand, and decades after the fact.

Do you have an empty tomb? No, there is no record of anyone visiting the tomb after Easter Sunday. Therefore no one external to the eyewitnesses confirmed that the tomb was empty. Since the bare minimum of a resurrection claim is an empty grave, and since no one apart from the eyewitnesses claimed to have seen the empty tomb, the empty tomb is not an additional piece of evidence but rather a necessary component of the eyewitness testimony.

Do you have the disciples' lives being transformed? Your knee-jerk reaction will be, "Of course!" Well, can you elaborate? The only way we can know that their lives were transformed is by their works. What did they do? They started churches. (Anyone can do that - the Buddhists started a religion and propped up monasteries in honor of one man whom they believed to be a god.) What did the apostles do when they were persecuted? Careful when you answer that, because apart from the apostles being martyred, what do you actually know about the circumstances of their deaths? What can you provide me along the lines of documented facts? I'm not interested in the general hearsay that you've gotten from your church because I have been lied to by all the churches I've been to - they will specifically tell you that the eyewitness apostles willfully refused to recant and go free, but this is simply a lie because there is no documentation of this anywhere in the world.

Perhaps "lie" is a strong accusation. I think the notion of faith has tinted the Christian culture to the point that no one is peer-reviewed. Facts are not cross-checked or researched. Claims can be made based on nothing. And now we find ourselves believing in a resurrection based on historical evidence that is flimsy at best.

Or is there another piece of evidence that I'm missing?

If the only piece of evidence that withstands scrutiny is second-hand, decades-old eyewitness testimony, then do we really have enough to conclude that a miracle occurred?

If I am mistaken in my analysis of the disciples' transformation, then please provide documented facts on this matter.

Well done sir, although I would disagree on one point. The whole "new religion is shameful". I've heard it explained before...but I didn't hear it explained as shameful. Romans had the idea that they owed the success of their society to their gods. As long as respect was given to the old gods...there wasn't anything particularly wrong with new gods (it just seemed ignorant since it broke with tradition). Christians didn't pay respect to the old gods...so they were breaking with tradition and putting society in danger. It was a lack of respect for Roman society itself.

You add to that the "weird" things said about these new christians (they ate their savior, had love feasts) and it was frightening to think a cult of orgiastic cannibals were invoking the wrath of the old gods. Still, they weren't prosecuted for being christian...they were prosecuted for not paying respect to Roman gods (done by burning incense...a small gesture of respect) so no amount of recanting their faith would change anything about their situation....let alone save them from execution.

I could be wrong of course...that's just how I remember reading it.

 

[durangodawood]

God is able to resurrect.
Jesus says He is God,
So Jesus resurrected.

Just to be sure,
Are you saying thats a logical proof for the Resurrection?

 

[bhsmte]

Just to be sure,
Are you saying thats a logical proof for the Resurrection?

Lets try this out:

I am able to be abducted by aliens
I say I was abducted by aliens
So I was abducted by aliens

 

[durangodawood]

Lets try this out:

I am able to be abducted by aliens
I say I was abducted by aliens
So I was abducted by aliens

Ok. Is this supposed to be a logical proof? What is it? What are you trying to show me?

 

[bhsmte]

Ok. Is this supposed to be a logical proof? What is it? What are you trying to show me?

I was abducted by aliens.

You don't believe me?

 

[durangodawood]

I was abducted by aliens.

You don't believe me?

It does not show me you were abducted by aliens.

 

[Soyeong]

But why would they recant if they are not aware of any danger?

That's why I said they were aware of the danger and had the opportunity to recant, but didn't choose to do so.

I have already laid out a sequence of events that is very possible and not contradicting any known facts:

1.) Rome allowed freedom of religion and worship of any god with the stipulation that one must also worship Roman gods. Do you contest this?
2.) Conjecture: The Christians teach Christianity and contradict Roman theology.
3.) Conjecture: The Romans become aware of this and begin to arrest and interrogate Christians.
4.) Conjecture: The line of questioning in these interrogations precludes the possibility of recanting and going free (explained in the OP).
5.) Conjecture: The remaining Christians see these executions and cease preaching, but are still prosecuted for sedition because they had been previously contradicting Roman theology.

I think 1 is correct, I'm not sure why 2-3 are conjecture, I've repeatedly contested 4, and I see no evidence for 5.

There is not a single known fact about the early church I've contradicted here. This story is entirely plausible, and does not require Jesus to have been risen from the dead. The Christians, in this scenario, were not "transformed" but rather they wanted to honor their fallen hero by passing on his teachings. By the time they found out that they had crossed the line, it was too late.

Sounds imaginative and again misses the point.

I'm not claiming that I've contradicted the resurrection claim here. My claim is that there is no evidence to support my side or your side, and so it is unreasonable to conclude that a miracle occurred. Therefore belief in the resurrection is not based on reason at all, but entirely on faith.

There's no evidence for my side only after you hand wave the evidence for my side. And again, faith is not an epistemology. If belief in the resurrection were not based on reason, then there wouldn't be anyone who held that belief.

I've spoken directly with Mike Licona and he was too busy to engage me, so he deferred me to his son in law, Nick Peters. In my extensive conversations with him he offered only one thing of substance on this issue: the ancient world as an honor/shame society, and new religions were shameful, so the fact that the Christians were willing to be shamed in creating their new religion was likely due to the fact that their claims were true. I find this claim to be quite weak because the apostles had honorable status within their Christian subculture, so even if they were generally regarded as shameful outside the church they still had their own community wherein they were revered.

We covered many topics, and he had expressed to me that he believed the Bible was contradiction-free but that it contained transcriber errors; in my last correspondence to him, I laid out a clear-cut Bible contradiction that is not the result of a transcriber error, and his only response in the last few weeks has been that he has suddenly encountered a family emergency and that he'd get back to me as soon as he could. Keep in mind he'd generally been replying inside of 24 hours, and by now it's been several weeks.

If you're interested in reading a scholarly book that deals with this issue, then I still recommend it. If you're not interested in scholarship on the issue, then please stop inaccurately claiming that there is little evidence. I'm friends with Nick Peters and he's not the type of person who would hide behind that excuse. The chances are far greater that he simply forgot to get back to you, so I'd send him another message.

Do you have eyewitness accounts? Yes, but they are given to us second-hand, and decades after the fact.

I don't see why that's a problem.

Do you have an empty tomb? No, there is no record of anyone visiting the tomb after Easter Sunday. Therefore no one external to the eyewitnesses confirmed that the tomb was empty. Since the bare minimum of a resurrection claim is an empty grave, and since no one apart from the eyewitnesses claimed to have seen the empty tomb, the empty tomb is not an additional piece of evidence but rather a necessary component of the eyewitness testimony.

The empty tomb is granted by the vast majority of Christian and non-Christians scholars.

Do you have the disciples' lives being transformed? Your knee-jerk reaction will be, "Of course!" Well, can you elaborate? The only way we can know that their lives were transformed is by their works. What did they do? They started churches. (Anyone can do that - the Buddhists started a religion and propped up monasteries in honor of one man whom they believed to be a god.) What did the apostles do when they were persecuted? Careful when you answer that, because apart from the apostles being martyred, what do you actually know about the circumstances of their deaths? What can you provide me along the lines of documented facts? I'm not interested in the general hearsay that you've gotten from your church because I have been lied to by all the churches I've been to - they will specifically tell you that the eyewitness apostles willfully refused to recant and go free, but this is simply a lie because there is no documentation of this anywhere in the world.

So why didn't Christianity die out like all of the other Messianic cults did after their leader died? Something obviously changed. Who would follow a someone who was executed by the Romans as their Messiah when they expected one who would instead conquer the Romans and reign over them?

Again, saying that they were all given a last opportunity recant and go free or die is overstating the case, but that doesn't change that they were martyred for their faith.

Perhaps "lie" is a strong accusation. I think the notion of faith has tinted the Christian culture to the point that no one is peer-reviewed. Facts are not cross-checked or researched. Claims can be made based on nothing. And now we find ourselves believing in a resurrection based on historical evidence that is flimsy at best.

Again, feel free to read scholarship on the issue, but if you choose not to, then at least stop making stuff up about it.

If the only piece of evidence that withstands scrutiny is second-hand, decades-old eyewitness testimony, then do we really have enough to conclude that a miracle occurred?

That didn't negatively affect the accuracy of the transmission unduly, so why wouldn't it be?[/quote]

 

[juvenissun]

What did I do that is incorrect? By your own argument, Jesus didn't have to do anything more than claim to be God.

There are many "stories" in the Bible that backup the claims of Jesus that Jesus is God.
In your case, there is nothing to back you up. That is what's wrong about your irrelevant argument.
If you find a similar case to that of Jesus, then your argument could be considered.

 

[juvenissun]

Just to be sure,
Are you saying thats a logical proof for the Resurrection?

Yes.