Resurrection Evidence

[cvanwey]

The last time I addressed that question you got upset and told me to go away.



That seems to happen to you a lot, so let me help you out. Here are the 3 questions:
1. What makes the claims of the Resurrection compelling?
2. Is belief in the Resurrection justified?
3. What evidence supports the Resurrection?

In post #2 of this thread, I indicated a familiarity with arguments surrounding question 3, but said I did not consider them relevant to my faith. I indicated my interest in this thread was related to your other questions. I understood you to say you were OK with that, and I should proceed.

If this thread is only about question 3 and nothing else, I'm happy to bow out and leave you to it.

If you don't see the difference between the three questions, this is going to be nothing but a confused mess from which nothing good will come - also a reason for me to bow out … though I have faith in your ability to plant the flag of victory in the vast reaches of the ether.​

​

What I find 'intriguing', are the preemptive prerequisites and qualifiers, prior to laying forth your case. What I also find 'intriguing', is for you to instead find opportunity in making statements to belittle my competence.

I have a hunch that if you felt your case was truly for sound reasons, you would forego all such 'games', and get right to it

But instead, here we are.... I'm not asking you to 'go away'. Please, please, please present your evidence. Let all of us be the judge, as to it's veracity.

What'za got?

 

[Resha Caner]

What I find 'intriguing', are the preemptive prerequisites and qualifiers, prior to laying forth your case. What I also find 'intriguing', is for you to instead find opportunity in making statements to belittle my competence.

I have a hunch that if you felt your case was truly for sound reasons, you would forego all such 'games', and get right to it

But instead, here we are.... I'm not asking you to 'go away'. Please, please, please present your evidence. Let all of us be the judge, as to it's veracity.

What'za got?

Present what? Tell me what this thread is about so I know which of the 3 questions you're asking.

 

[cvanwey]

Prior to responding below, please understand [my own personal criteria for historical reporting].

- Any/all historical reports have to be acknowledged as fallible.
- Reported sources, which stem form a particular bias - (politically or socially), tend to lend less plausible 'objective' credibility.
- Reported events, which defy the laws of physics, tend to lend less plausible credibility.
- Hearsay is usually less reliable than first hand reports.
- Such events supported by relevant concrete relics add to the possible veracity...
- Claimed events are independently corroborated, via eyewitness attestation.
- Eyewitness attestations are reported contemporarily.
- Original source documents are preserved, where applicable.

Maybe others, but this is all I can recall off the top of my head...

Fact #1 - Jesus died by Roman crucifixion

Though there really is no way to 'prove' this assertion, one way or another, I'll blindly accept this without any contention - (for now).

Fact #2 - The empty tomb

Okay. Now we are in the realm of the 'laws of physics' being questioned? Thus, we must first ask ourselves...

What evidence particularly supports that Jesus was placed in any particular tomb, and that He was later missing?

Fact #3 - People believed they saw the risen Jesus

'People' also believed they witnessed the 'golden tablets', regarding the Book of Mormon. But in the case of the 'golden tablets', we have specified independent sources. And yet, I doubt you believe it.

Fact #4 - Non-believers radically changed

People change what they believe all the time. And there exists little controversy, that what someone believes directly affects their behavior, actions, and directions accordingly.

Fact #5 - The Christian faith grows despite the fear of torture or death

One could convincingly argue that Christianity grow 'fast' during/after the rule of Constantine.

Being a martyr for any belief, an idea spreading quickly, lend no further 'truth' value, as to the veracity of a claim, does it? I trust I do not need to provide examples of ideas, which grow swiftly, which turned out false? I trust I also do not need to furnish examples of people whom died, directly related to an incorrect belief/idea?

 

[Resha Caner]

Prior to responding below, please understand [my own personal criteria for historical reporting].

- Any/all historical reports have to be acknowledged as fallible.
- Reported sources, which stem form a particular bias - (politically or socially), tend to lend less plausible 'objective' credibility.
- Reported events, which defy the laws of physics, tend to lend less plausible credibility.
- Hearsay is usually less reliable than first hand reports.
- Such events supported by relevant concrete relics add to the possible veracity...
- Claimed events are independently corroborated, via eyewitness attestation.
- Eyewitness attestations are reported contemporarily.
- Original source documents are preserved, where applicable.

Maybe others, but this is all I can recall off the top of my head...

I realize this reply was not for me, and maybe you never intended to reply to me, but in all sincerity -
Thank you.

From what I can infer over the 300+ posts of this thread, you are really only interested in question #3: What is the evidence for the Resurrection? I understand that, as people give you answers, you may decide to ask follow up questions, but I expect the evidence question remains your primary interest.

Given the above list, my response remains: No, I don't have an answer for you. Further, as I've indicated, this question doesn't really interest me. I found the others more intriguing. I get the impression that answer disappoints you. With all honesty, I get the impression you want us to give you evidence that you can defeat through argument. That just doesn't interest me.

I am, however, interested in history. I spent the time to get a degree after all. So I would be interested in discussing your list of criteria. If that interests you as well, we have a reason to proceed.

 

[cvanwey]

I realize this reply was not for me, and maybe you never intended to reply to me, but in all sincerity -
Thank you.

You are welcome.

From what I can infer over the 300+ posts of this thread, you are really only interested in question #3: What is the evidence for the Resurrection?

This is the title of the OP

I understand that, as people give you answers, you may decide to ask follow up questions, but I expect the evidence question remains your primary interest.

OP title, yes.

Given the above list, my response remains: No, I don't have an answer for you. Further, as I've indicated, this question doesn't really interest me.

Might I make a suggestion then? Don't respond to the post. Just as I choose not to myself, when I can neither feel sufficiently justified in my response, nor carry the interest in doing so...

I found the others more intriguing. I get the impression that answer disappoints you. With all honesty, I get the impression you want us to give you evidence that you can defeat through argument. That just doesn't interest me.

Then why on earth do you spend much time here?

"Christian Apologetics

A forum for non-Christians to challenge the Christian faith, and for Christians to defend their faith"

I am, however, interested in history. I spent the time to get a degree after all.

If memory serves me correctly, you obtained an engineering degree? You received one in history as well? Regardless, does my 'criteria for history' appear reasonable for you? Why or why not?

So I would be interested in discussing your list of criteria. If that interests you as well, we have a reason to proceed.

I might, if you can refrain from further attempts at attacking my intellect. Please be advised that many choose not to converse, via writing, and choose to instead only speak face-to-face; as the written word can be misinterpreted. A prime example of this might be how you and I translate a seemingly axiomatic verse from the Bible

Moving forward, what exactly would you like to discuss? At the end of the day, all roads seem to be as follows, for Christians:

"14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

 

[muichimotsu]

I don't know who you're referring to - these "people who know what they're talking about", but I'd be fascinated to know how you "objectively" established this.

What I see you doing over and over is constructing scenarios of the way you think people should act, and then assuming reality consists only of people who actually do act in this hypothetical way (which is no one). If you're serious about deeply understanding Biblical texts as historical texts, I would recommend you actually study history. By that I mean pursue a degree. I know it completely changed my understanding of what history is.


Too often what I see from unbelievers is people who have picked up ideas about history from uncredentialled internet discussions that sound good, and have never engaged history in the broader context of a professional setting that will hold them accountable.

I've seen the transformation not only in myself, but in others. In fact, there was someone on this forum who, as an unbeliever, obtained a degree in Biblical Studies, became a teacher, and came to this forum proclaiming how utterly ridiculous and false the Bible was. It was fascinating how, over time, as this person was held accountable by other professionals in the field, the objections fell away one by one until that person had nothing left to argue and became a Christian.

Here, unfortunately, that accountability is sorely lacking. Regardless, somehow you need to learn that the world doesn't work the same way as you conceive it should in your mind. The real world is chaotic and messy and the Bible reflects that - as do all historical sources. Historians work with that messy chaos, they don't clear it away to discover some "objective truth".

Except considering Biblical texts as historical texts is stretching the meaning to almost nothing when their intention is narrative for a spiritual purpose, incidentally referencing actual historical figures or places. Yes, I'm sure you can cherry pick only the people who agree with your position that have engaged in history to your satisfaction and concluded your particular beliefs are true, that'd be awfully convenient and not at all an excuse to not actually engage critically with contrary positions.

~~~~~

Because the only conclusion when studying religion is to become religious...except that's blatantly false even if you narrow it to theology: we can find several examples where people studying to be ministers decided not to do so and decided the claims of Christianity were unfounded. If you're going to be intellectually honest, at least admit the possibility that your claims are at least partly false rather than just concluding based on flimsy thinking and cherry picking those who agree with you that the only option is that Jesus resurrected and is God

Not sure where I remotely used the term objective truth, which is tantamount to absolute truth: I in no way would expect the world to behave the way you mischaracterize me as saying it ought to and I'm also aware that historical truths are not on the level of scientific truths: doesn't mean we should lower our standards to believe in things unjustified by any reasonable evidence, but mere inference from motivations of the writers

 

[muichimotsu]

You don't need to take Paul's account as being anything more than a subjective mystical experience, but you cannot say that we have no accounts from anyone who was not utterly convinced of the truth from the start. That is patently false.



The Gospels are a historical document, in that they were produced by a historical community and provide evidence of what was going on in that community. If you look at Luke, you'll see that the immediate reaction to Mary Magdalene and the other women was to write them off as an idle tale, so to say that people were immediately convinced from the very start doesn't fit with the actual narrative. You do not have to take this account at face value, but if you are going to say that people were "utterly convinced of the truth from the very start rather than looking at it like a person would in general," you need to provide evidence for that claim. The reactions described in Luke and John are pretty normal.



Insofar as you're asking for accounts from people who didn't immediately believe, and he's someone who did in fact not immediately believe, he seems to qualify. I really don't know why you'd expect genuine eye-witnesses to withhold judgment and not actually believe. It's not like people didn't believe in miracles in the 1st century A.D.



I would be very disturbed by the state of ancient history if we did not have more evidence pointing to the historicity of Julius Caesar. It's normal to have records about major political figures involved in military campaigns.

See, for example, Mohammed. Much of the information on him has been passed down by "religious zealots," as you so charitably describe it, but we have non-Islamic documentation of him because of his military pursuits.



I see no reason to assume this.

Paul not being convinced of Christianity initially and being converted is still not a basis to consider Christianity as being true merely due to that

~~~`

Writing them in a way that would still vindicate their claims necessitates they'd have people being skeptical and then changing their minds, that trope is fairly old in nature, that's not the point here. Just because they account these things doesn't mean we're meant to conclude they happened as a matter of fact when they seem highly incoherent, particularly the miracles. An itinerant apocalyptic rabbi spouting that the world will end was supposedly pretty common in those times, that's not what I'm skeptical of, it's the supernatural aspects of the account.


~~~~


Paul still doesn't fit in terms of reasonable standards, because his experience is necessarily mystical and subject to criticism in terms of whether he really believes for the best reasons and isn't just changing his zealotry from one authority to another.


~~~


And by the reasonable historical standards, we'd probably still have more evidence of Muhammad's existence than Jesus the Christ's, since, far as I'm aware, no such non Christian accounts exist contemporary to Jesus attesting to his existence.

~~~~~


So revelation is somehow a reliable method of conveying information? And how is it not necessarily subjective when the content is not remotely clear by necessity and tends to rely on flowery vague language?

 

[muichimotsu]

The only way we can know if the resurrection occurred is to find out through the facts that it did happen. Being that this alleged event is a "supernatural event" it doesn't make it any less unknowable through the field of historical investigation, it only becomes obscure if it were considered through the realm of philosophical speculation. Whether the resurrection may classify as a "miraculous event," it is a historical event nonetheless and should be investigated as such. If this past event can be examined depends on the strick grounds of the method in investigating accounts from antiquity. Therefore, whether or not Jesus rose from the dead is quite straightforward: If a man named Jesus died by crucifixion at point A, and is alive again at point B, then resurrection has occurred "res ipsa loquitur."

Fact #1 - Jesus died by Roman crucifixion
Fact #2 - The empty tomb
Fact #3 - People believed they saw the risen Jesus
Fact #4 - Non-believers radically changed
Fact #5 - The Christian faith grows despite the fear of torture or death

Conclusion:

The more naturalistic explanations for the above facts such as the swoon theory, legendary development, fraud, and hallucinations fail to account for all the relevant data compiled and in some cases, are outright false and ahistorical (copycat theories). The resurrection hypothesis, however, accounts for all known facts, has greater explanatory scope and power, is more plausible, and less ad hoc.
Despite the slew of books that go into great detail on the case for the resurrection, using a minimal amount of facts compiled together that virtually every scholar accepts as accurate is probably an approach appropriate for a forum formatted in a way that encourages conversation to be more dynamic rather than contemplative? "The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing."

You do realize you're making vast assumptions in the line of argumentation, particularly that initial notion that only 1 Jesus died by crucifixion. And that's a big lump of assumptions in point A leading to point B, when it could've been that same Jesus in point A died in some other way and then came back, which would bring into question the reliability of the account if they're going with crucifixion specifically

And his resurrection happening still doesn't give credence to the basis by which his resurrection occurred (God), only that it occurred and we'd need further investigation (which we can't do with the limited historical sources)

~~~

There are several problems: such as whether this Jesus figure is a singular person or a compilation of various rabbis in the historical period. The empty tomb is irrelevant, because at this point, pretty sure we wouldn't find a body, because burial practices as they describe wouldn't have allowed him to still be around 2000+ years after his death. And the other explanations are hardly ad hoc, they're considering that these zealous followers may not have been thinking clearly in regards to the cult leader they looked up to and were convinced he was some messiah, that's not ignoring the facts, it's taking them into account more objectively regarding the scenario

~~~`

People can believe they were abducted by aliens, we have no more reason to believe them without actual sufficient evidence and we can still talk to people who are convinced of that, while the witnesses for Jesus are long dead and none appear to have been named in any significance that were nonbelievers of note that didn't fit into the story itself rather than being historical figures we can verify independent of the gospels.

~~~~

And your 5th point is the least compelling as to the truth of the claims, because people are willing to die for things that both you and I would agree are demonstrably not true, meaning that the willingness to be a martyr is the last line of argumentation to be used in terms of the truth of the claims they die for.

 

[Resha Caner]

Then why on earth do you spend much time here?

As I said, very early on it appeared you were asking other questions in addition, and I asked if you were open to discussing them apart from debating evidence. I got the impression you were open to that - just as your reply here seems to indicate you are open to it.

If memory serves me correctly, you obtained an engineering degree? You received one in history as well?

Yes. I have an M.S. in Mechanical Engineering and an M.A. in American History. How that happened is a long story.

Moving forward, what exactly would you like to discuss? At the end of the day, all roads seem to be as follows, for Christians:

"14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

Well, this is a Christian forum. Regardless, I have many interests I'd be willing to discuss that don't require me to convert you. A good discussion is always worth it. Further, it seems to me conversion is only a tiny, tiny probability as long as CF is your only engagement with Christianity.

Regardless, does my 'criteria for history' appear reasonable for you? Why or why not?

That's a hard question to answer. I appreciate that you listed your criteria. That's a rare thing. And if it truly represents what you're after, who am I to criticize that?

If you're asking how it fits with my faith or how it would play with professional historians, that's a different question, and you'll need to be open to some criticism. And I get it: you don't like my sarcasm. If we were to proceed, it would take some care.​

 

[Resha Caner]

Except considering Biblical texts as historical texts is stretching the meaning to almost nothing when their intention is narrative for a spiritual purpose, incidentally referencing actual historical figures or places. Yes, I'm sure you can cherry pick only the people who agree with your position that have engaged in history to your satisfaction and concluded your particular beliefs are true, that'd be awfully convenient and not at all an excuse to not actually engage critically with contrary positions.

I realize studying history under professional historians is not an option for everyone. Still, if it were an option for you, I think it would be very beneficial. You would realize how your comments miss the mark. [edit] I should add that I don't currently hold a teaching position as a historian (though that may change in the near future), so I'm not suggesting I be the one to teach you history. But I can share what I have learned.

It's not an easy thing to do - to learn to set aside one's beliefs and submit to the authority of a professional discipline like history. I admit it took me quite some time to do it, both for science and history. But discipline is good. My resulting philosophical outlook on history and science is largely instrumentalist.

So when discussing the Bible, I need to know: In what context are you asking me that question? Are you asking me what I know as a Christian, or are you asking me what the discipline of history can say about it? As it is, it seems you're not asking for either. If so, why ask?

 

[muichimotsu]

I realize studying history under professional historians is not an option for everyone. Still, if it were an option for you, I think it would be very beneficial. You would realize how your comments miss the mark. [edit] I should add that I don't currently hold a teaching position as a historian (though that may change in the near future), so I'm not suggesting I be the one to teach you history. But I can share what I have learned.

It's not an easy thing to do - to learn to set aside one's beliefs and submit to the authority of a professional discipline like history. I admit it took me quite some time to do it, both for science and history. But discipline is good. My resulting philosophical outlook on history and science is largely instrumentalist.

So when discussing the Bible, I need to know: In what context are you asking me that question? Are you asking me what I know as a Christian, or are you asking me what the discipline of history can say about it? As it is, it seems you're not asking for either. If so, why ask?

That's not what I'm talking about, I'm saying that historical evidence is generally not considered in the same vein or as reliable given particular claims made, the OP brought that up in a post. We don't regard a claim historically about aliens as reliable versus someone who claims they actually have a spaceship or such. Even personal testimony is not reliable in itself

Historical authority is not to the extent that we believe it unquestioningly, especially when it comes to the overlap with religious traditions that claim truth that isn't supported historically in the first place (or even scientifically). Incidental agreement with basic historical standards is not the same as being completely true or even compelling

Both variations can apply, but if we're being objective in some sense, what evidence, independent of your particular religious convictions, remotely suggests the resurrection 1) happened and 2) was a supernatural event? Or an event that would require some god, since you apparently don't have an alternative to supernatural as a term that I recall

 

[Silmarien]

Paul not being convinced of Christianity initially and being converted is still not a basis to consider Christianity as being true merely due to that

Irrelevant to the question at hand, which was specifically whether people were "utterly convinced of the truth from the very start rather than looking at it like a person would in general."

Writing them in a way that would still vindicate their claims necessitates they'd have people being skeptical and then changing their minds, that trope is fairly old in nature, that's not the point here. Just because they account these things doesn't mean we're meant to conclude they happened as a matter of fact when they seem highly incoherent, particularly the miracles. An itinerant apocalyptic rabbi spouting that the world will end was supposedly pretty common in those times, that's not what I'm skeptical of, it's the supernatural aspects of the account.

Again, irrelevant to the question at hand, which was once again specifically whether people were "utterly convinced of the truth from the very start rather than looking at it like a person would in general."

Paul still doesn't fit in terms of reasonable standards, because his experience is necessarily mystical and subject to criticism in terms of whether he really believes for the best reasons and isn't just changing his zealotry from one authority to another.

Reasonable standards for what? He certainly seems to be someone who was not, as you put it, "utterly convinced of the truth from the very start."

And by the reasonable historical standards, we'd probably still have more evidence of Muhammad's existence than Jesus the Christ's, since, far as I'm aware, no such non Christian accounts exist contemporary to Jesus attesting to his existence.

I agree that we have more evidence for Mohammed than for Jesus. Given that the former was engaged in military campaigns, that is not particularly noteworthy. Only means that Mohammed Mythicism is even crazier than Jesus Mythicism.

So revelation is somehow a reliable method of conveying information? And how is it not necessarily subjective when the content is not remotely clear by necessity and tends to rely on flowery vague language?

Not sure how any of this is relevant to the claim that God is incompetent. To defend that, you would need to specify what his actual aim is, and why his methods have failed to obtain that.

 

[Resha Caner]

That's not what I'm talking about, I'm saying that historical evidence is generally not considered in the same vein or as reliable given particular claims made, the OP brought that up in a post. We don't regard a claim historically about aliens as reliable versus someone who claims they actually have a spaceship or such. Even personal testimony is not reliable in itself

Historical authority is not to the extent that we believe it unquestioningly, especially when it comes to the overlap with religious traditions that claim truth that isn't supported historically in the first place (or even scientifically). Incidental agreement with basic historical standards is not the same as being completely true or even compelling

Both variations can apply, but if we're being objective in some sense, what evidence, independent of your particular religious convictions, remotely suggests the resurrection 1) happened and 2) was a supernatural event? Or an event that would require some god, since you apparently don't have an alternative to supernatural as a term that I recall

While not all sources are equal, a historian would not approach it as you suggest.

 

[muichimotsu]

Irrelevant to the question at hand, which was specifically whether people were "utterly convinced of the truth from the very start rather than looking at it like a person would in general."



Again, irrelevant to the question at hand, which was once again specifically whether people were "utterly convinced of the truth from the very start rather than looking at it like a person would in general."



Reasonable standards for what? He certainly seems to be someone who was not, as you put it, "utterly convinced of the truth from the very start."



I agree that we have more evidence for Mohammed than for Jesus. Given that the former was engaged in military campaigns, that is not particularly noteworthy. Only means that Mohammed Mythicism is even crazier than Jesus Mythicism.



Not sure how any of this is relevant to the claim that God is incompetent. To defend that, you would need to specify what his actual aim is, and why his methods have failed to obtain that.

Except I'm almost certain I didn't specify that much, I said someone that didn't have a bias, and even Paul has a pretty strong bias in his zealotry, even if he wasn't initially convinced

~~~`

Point out where I said that and I'll retract it, because I don't mean that, anymore than I expect historical evidence to be nearly as conclusive as, say, scientific evidence.

~~~~

Standards that would suggest they weren't writing with a strong bias towards assuming the truth of what they already concluded in the writing rather than actually offering evidence, details, etc. Those 500 witnesses aren't even named slightly, just a big lump of 500 people that supposedly saw Jesus post resurrection

~~~~

Not sure how Jesus mythicism is nearly that crazy when we don't seem to have any non Christian sources contemporary to it even corroborating particulars, let alone the miraculous stuff, but even something as simple as Jesus being born in a manger (or a story that talks about something like that without mentioning names) would lend slightly more credence to things.

~~~~

If we assume God's aim is to convey that it exists clearly, then doing so through revelation and written word, both of which are subjective and subject to change in terms of relevance (whether the languages would survive or be nearly so common, for instance) suggests it isn't really an entity, just one people ascribe the properties to in order to cover their own incompetence in making absolute claims like that

 

[muichimotsu]

While not all sources are equal, a historian would not approach it as you suggest.

By all means show sources that are remotely contemporary to the time frame given for Jesus' existence, because I'm almost certain most of the sources that are even close to that outside the gospels and epistles are decades after the fact, not exactly contemporary

 

[Resha Caner]

By all means show sources that are remotely contemporary to the time frame given for Jesus' existence, because I'm almost certain most of the sources that are even close to that outside the gospels and epistles are decades after the fact, not exactly contemporary

I don't see how this is a reply to my post. Does this mean we're done with the current conversation and starting a new one? If so, I think my reply in post #304 will suffice.

 

[Silmarien]

Except I'm almost certain I didn't specify that much, I said someone that didn't have a bias, and even Paul has a pretty strong bias in his zealotry, even if he wasn't initially convinced

~~~`

Point out where I said that and I'll retract it, because I don't mean that, anymore than I expect historical evidence to be nearly as conclusive as, say, scientific evidence.

I'm quoting your post here: Resurrection Evidence

Standards that would suggest they weren't writing with a strong bias towards assuming the truth of what they already concluded in the writing rather than actually offering evidence, details, etc. Those 500 witnesses aren't even named slightly, just a big lump of 500 people that supposedly saw Jesus post resurrection

Why would Paul offer evidence and details in a letter addressed to a Christian community he was in communication with? If your "responsible standard" requires everyone to give a full recounting of the evidence behind their beliefs in every conversation or correspondence they engage in, that is completely insane.

Not sure how Jesus mythicism is nearly that crazy when we don't seem to have any non Christian sources contemporary to it even corroborating particulars, let alone the miraculous stuff, but even something as simple as Jesus being born in a manger (or a story that talks about something like that without mentioning names) would lend slightly more credence to things.

This would suggest lack of familiarity with the scholarship, because mythicism is not exactly reputable. I would recommend taking a look at something like Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?

Failing that, the late biblical scholar Larry Hurtado had a number of blog articles on the topic. For example: Why the “Mythical Jesus” Claim Has No Traction with Scholars

If we assume God's aim is to convey that it exists clearly, then doing so through revelation and written word, both of which are subjective and subject to change in terms of relevance (whether the languages would survive or be nearly so common, for instance) suggests it isn't really an entity, just one people ascribe the properties to in order to cover their own incompetence in making absolute claims like that

I wouldn't assume that God's aim is to convey that he exists clearly. If we're looking specifically at the Abrahamic God, that doesn't seem all that high on the list of priorities.

 

[muichimotsu]

I'm quoting your post here: Resurrection Evidence



Why would Paul offer evidence and details in a letter addressed to a Christian community he was in communication with? If your "responsible standard" requires everyone to give a full recounting of the evidence behind their beliefs in every conversation or correspondence they engage in, that is completely insane.



This would suggest lack of familiarity with the scholarship, because mythicism is not exactly reputable. I would recommend taking a look at something like Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?

Failing that, the late biblical scholar Larry Hurtado had a number of blog articles on the topic. For example: Why the “Mythical Jesus” Claim Has No Traction with Scholars



I wouldn't assume that God's aim is to convey that he exists clearly. If we're looking specifically at the Abrahamic God, that doesn't seem all that high on the list of priorities.

My quote did not suggest the antithesis of I'm questioning accounts [that] seem utterly convinced of the truth from the start rather than looking at it like a person would in general, not question begging in their narrative. That's like framing atheists as affirming God doesn't exist rather than not being convinced by the evidence, but not making such an affirmative statement

~~~


The problem remains that Paul's motivation seems less than reasonable or reliable as anything more than a zealot preaching to people about how they're not the right kind of Christian rather than someone trying to convey something even remotely close to Jesus' message (which makes sense if all he had was a vision and only talked secondhand to those who met Jesus or such)

~~~

Not sure if there's necessarily one mythicist premise in the first place, so any rejections would be on a case by case rather than considering that Jesus' historicity shouldn't be taken as a matter of fact merely because we have several documents all with a bias in reporting him as divine in the first place rather than reporting the facts at least slightly more impartially in some sense. I could grant his historical existence provisionally, but that's about as far as I'd be willing to go in buying any claims regarding him

~~~~

So the question becomes why one should take any claims about divine revelation seriously when they suffer from divine hiddenness almost by nature?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Often times, debate will transpire between believers and non-believers. At the end of some of these discussions, the believer will stop the debate, and state 'all that matters is that Jesus died for us, etc..'

I now ask....

What exactly makes the evidence(s) for a claimed resurrection so dang compelling, as opposed to claims of other messiahs, god(s), other?

Because at the end of the day, Jesus either rose from the dead, or He didn't. Are we justified in believing He did?

I would think those of us who perceive that Christianity has more going for it than do the competing World Religions do so because we've found some epistemic nuance(s) within the structure of Christianity which differ in nature from those which we [may] find within the other religions, and we find those nuances in Christianity more meaningful and thereby more plausible to fitting into the structure of Reality that we all attempt to wrestle with on a daily basis. One such nuance would be the fact that the New Testament writings, unlike many foundational writings of other World Religions, seems to be grounded in a historical context.

For instance, just read the Mahabharata--as interesting and as inspirational as it is as a religious or philosophical narrative, there is basically little within that narrative that could ever contextually ground it as being some 'where' or some 'when' that is identifiable by those of us who now read it. The same goes for the Qu'ran or the Tao Te Ching, among other writings from other non-Jewish religions. But when we read the New Testament, or even the Old for that matter, we find the ideas being written about within their dusty, archaic pages to be AT LEAST placed within what reads as a real world setting, one mostly appropriate to the times in which we think the writings were created. This one difference alone in the literary nuance between Christianity's books and those of other religions is, of course, not the whole kit-and-kaboodle in why Christians find the Bible and/or Christianity on the whole compelling, it's just one nuance. No, thre are other nuances which we've all been talking about here for years.

However, despite all of what I've just said above, I have to bring up an epistemic issue. As I read your OP, it's not clear to me whether you're wanting Christians to provide an account of 'why' they individually find Christianity compelling, or you're instead wanting Christians to explain in what ways you, too, should find compelling what they find to be compelling about their own religious view.

I feel I have to point out this bifurcation which exists within your OP because your epistemic goal doesn't seem to be clearly delineated; it seems to inquire in more than one direction. Then again, maybe I shouldn't point it out because, personally, I really, really don't expect other people to find Christianity compelling just because I do.

What is more unfortunate as I read your OP is that I almost get the impression you think that the human act of achieving a state of "justification," for any and all ideas, should have some kind of universally recognized praxis to it, one that could be applied to almost any instance of inquiry and with a one-size-fits all method ...
It would be great if it did, wouldn't it? But as far as I know, as per the link I've provided below, it doesn't! ...... So what are we to do?

Epistemic Justification

Here's a thoughtful answer: How about as we go into the new year and into a new decade with the arrival of 2020--hindsight or no--we don't repetitively badger each other about it all and, as far as Christianity is concerned, we resist holding each other accountable beyond reasonable epistemic measure(s) ... especially where any one of our individual beliefs about the Resurrection of Jesus is concerned?

 

[Silmarien]

My quote did not suggest the antithesis of I'm questioning accounts [that] seem utterly convinced of the truth from the start rather than looking at it like a person would in general, not question begging in their narrative. That's like framing atheists as affirming God doesn't exist rather than not being convinced by the evidence, but not making such an affirmative statement

I have no idea what the definition of atheism has to do with whether the early Christians were looking at matters in a fashion that would be considered reasonable in the 1st century context.

The problem remains that Paul's motivation seems less than reasonable or reliable as anything more than a zealot preaching to people about how they're not the right kind of Christian rather than someone trying to convey something even remotely close to Jesus' message (which makes sense if all he had was a vision and only talked secondhand to those who met Jesus or such)

This is more an assertion than a problem, and seems to be based on your own prejudices rather than the text. I see little in the way of significant differences between Paul and the Gospels.

Not sure if there's necessarily one mythicist premise in the first place, so any rejections would be on a case by case rather than considering that Jesus' historicity shouldn't be taken as a matter of fact merely because we have several documents all with a bias in reporting him as divine in the first place rather than reporting the facts at least slightly more impartially in some sense. I could grant his historical existence provisionally, but that's about as far as I'd be willing to go in buying any claims regarding him

You're welcome to believe whatever you'd like, but the state of modern scholarship isn't dependent upon how many historical facts you're personally willing to accept. If someone is going to go against the consensus, they usually attempt to substantiate that difference of opinion with actual arguments and evidence, not just dogmatic hyper-skepticism.

So the question becomes why one should take any claims about divine revelation seriously when they suffer from divine hiddenness almost by nature?

No, the question was whether God's methods demonstate incompetence.