Was Jesus Resurrected? [Archive] - Ron Paul Forums / Liberty Forest

Deborah K

10-07-2009, 12:27 PM

This video series was done by an atheist explaining why there is a case for the resurrection, historical evidence, etc. His second video is an explanation of why he still doesn't believe it, but I find his first video much more logic-based. The videos are relevant because it will quickly counter some basic atheist misconceptions, but also present both sides of the argument.

YouTube - The best possible case for Christianity : construction (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2a58eJFY10)

YouTube - The Best Possible Case For Christianity : Deconstruction (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daP_ZDUkfVI)

The guy is way off base with the whole twin team scam. The name Thomas means "twin" and nowhere in the book of Thomas does he claim Jesus has a twin. :rolleyes:

Second, the story of Jesus walking on water that he uses is inaccurate. He claims Jesus was in the boat and his twin on on the bank and somehow people deduced that he must have walked on water. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

If he had taken the time to read the story he would know Jesus sent the disciples ahead in a boat and then walked out to them. They saw him coming and at first were scared until he identified himself. He convinced one of them to walk out to him which he did, but when the winds and waves kicked up, the disciple Peter, lost his nerve and began to sink.

wizardwatson

10-07-2009, 12:36 PM

Well, perhaps someone in this thread will prove me wrong, but it's very obviously just faith.

Faith:

"belief that is not based on proof" - Dictionary.com

Kierkegaard on Faith:

“Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.”

Kierkegaard on Faith as the opposite of Sin (and Sin ultimately as "despair" over ones condition):

"This fact, that the opposite of sin is by no means virtue, has been overlooked. The latter is partly a pagan view, which is content with a merely human standard, and which for that very reason does not know what sin is, that all sin is before God. No, the opposite of sin is faith."

Kierkegaard on 'defending' Christianity:

"How extraordinarily stupid it is to defend Christianity, how little knowledge of humanity it betrays, how it connives if only unconsciously with offence by making Christianity out to be some miserable object that in the end must be rescued by a defence. It is therefore certain and true that the person who first thought of defending Christianity is de facto a Judas No. 2; he too betrays with a kiss, except his treason is that of stupidity. To defend something is always to discredit it."

I like to apply that last quote to things like defending the historicity of the resurrection or of what precisely occurred with the life of Jesus. It really makes petty and pathetic the magnitude of what you are actually trying to communicate. People focus on the wrong part of the story.

Sorry by the way, on a Kierkegaard kick this fall it seems..

Deborah K

10-07-2009, 12:48 PM

Kierkegaard on Faith:

“Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.”

Kierkegaard on Faith as the opposite of Sin (and Sin ultimately as "despair" over ones condition):

"This fact, that the opposite of sin is by no means virtue, has been overlooked. The latter is partly a pagan view, which is content with a merely human standard, and which for that very reason does not know what sin is, that all sin is before God. No, the opposite of sin is faith."

Kierkegaard on 'defending' Christianity:

"How extraordinarily stupid it is to defend Christianity, how little knowledge of humanity it betrays, how it connives if only unconsciously with offence by making Christianity out to be some miserable object that in the end must be rescued by a defence. It is therefore certain and true that the person who first thought of defending Christianity is de facto a Judas No. 2; he too betrays with a kiss, except his treason is that of stupidity. To defend something is always to discredit it."

I like to apply that last quote to things like defending the historicity of the resurrection or of what precisely occurred with the life of Jesus. It really makes petty and pathetic the magnitude of what you are actually trying to communicate. People focus on the wrong part of the story.

Sorry by the way, on a Kierkegaard kick this fall it seems..

Interesting although I disagree that to defend something is to discredit it. I do believe that in defending something haphazardly the consequence can result in discreditation, which is definitely the case when defending Christianity in this way.

wizardwatson

10-07-2009, 01:07 PM

Interesting although I disagree that to defend something is to discredit it. I do believe that in defending something haphazardly the consequence can result in discreditation, which is definitely the case when defending Christianity in this way.

Yeah, I don't know the context of that quote, but he does kind of cross the line with the "always" part.

I get quote happy sometimes, and get skimpy on relevance and quality.

Maybe I just miss TruthWarrior. LOL :D

erowe1

10-07-2009, 02:43 PM

We had a disscusion at a C4L awhile back and some of the Christians in our group said that Jesus' resurrection is a historical fact and there is proof. Outside of the Bible, I don't see any. My Dad's boss is an Evagelical and he says that God talks to him, and for him , that is proof enough. I need something with a little more meat and less potatos.

Why would you exclude the Bible from your pool of evidence? Would you exclude the Quran from the evidence you use when investigating the origins of Islam?

I would hesitate to use the word "proof" here, since proof is not something that can be given for historical questions in the same clear objective sense that it can in mathematical ones, and in using that term I would run the risk of using it in a way other than how you understand it. But I would say that the historicity of bodily resurrection of Jesus has more going for it than a great many other historical claims that are widely accepted as fact. There has been much written on this.

If you can get your hands on a copy, you might consider checking out this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Assessing-Testament-Historicity-Resurrection-Christianity/dp/0889466165/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254947965&sr=8-1
It addresses both your question about the historicity of the resurrection and the issue of why the evidence we can glean from the New Testament is so important for an honest search for truth in this matter.

If you can't find this, or want to start with something less scholarly, you might consider this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Resurrection-Figment-Between-Ludemann/dp/0830815694/ref=pd_sim_b_21

Or this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas/dp/0825427886/ref=pd_sim_b_3

pcosmar

10-07-2009, 02:45 PM

Was Jesus Resurrected?
Yes.

YumYum

10-07-2009, 06:34 PM

Why would you exclude the Bible from your pool of evidence? Would you exclude the Quran from the evidence you use when investigating the origins of Islam?

I would hesitate to use the word "proof" here, since proof is not something that can be given for historical questions in the same clear objective sense that it can in mathematical ones, and in using that term I would run the risk of using it in a way other than how you understand it. But I would say that the historicity of bodily resurrection of Jesus has more going for it than a great many other historical claims that are widely accepted as fact. There has been much written on this.

If you can get your hands on a copy, you might consider checking out this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Assessing-Testament-Historicity-Resurrection-Christianity/dp/0889466165/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254947965&sr=8-1
It addresses both your question about the historicity of the resurrection and the issue of why the evidence we can glean from the New Testament is so important for an honest search for truth in this matter.

If you can't find this, or want to start with something less scholarly, you might consider this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Resurrection-Figment-Between-Ludemann/dp/0830815694/ref=pd_sim_b_21

Or this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas/dp/0825427886/ref=pd_sim_b_3

I haven't excluded the Bible from examination of the resurrection, but I do look for explanations on other historical evidence that is currently available. There are two ways to treat the Gospels. One is to believe that they were written by God, word for word. I do not believe this because the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) are identical word for word in many passages, which proves that somebody copied somebody (Literary dependency). God wouldn't copy his own writings (or would He?)The other approach to look at, is God inspired the writers to "get off their butts", so to say, and do some serious research and write down what they knew. I would be more inclined to think that this was the way it happened, if it happened at all. But again, this is a guess. With that view, it would explain the discrepancies in all four Gospels regarding the resurrection accounts. They may have taken them from different oral traditions. While the Synoptic Gospels are similar, they differ in many details. The resurrection account in John is very much different than the Synoptics in its details. I have yet to find a satisfactory answer as to why the resurrection accounts are not in agreement. Currently, there is much research being done by anthropologists in Israel, and there are always new approaches to this subject. The book you recommend by Craig looks very interesting; I would hope that it does not deal with this subject strictly from an apologist viewpoint, but from a researcher and historian’s viewpoint that has done critical research.

LDA

10-08-2009, 10:19 AM

No one can say for certain, but I think the reasonable answer is no. There's no historical evidence that he was resurrected outside of the bible. Using the bible as evidence is circular reasoning. Once a human dies and its tissue begins to decay, I don't think anything can bring them back to life. If you disagree, you're relying on faith, which is belief in something for no good reason.

erowe1

10-08-2009, 10:54 AM

Using the bible as evidence is circular reasoning.

How is it circular reasoning to use the available historical evidence to investigate the a question of what happened in history?

Jeremy

10-08-2009, 11:00 AM

Using the bible as evidence is circular reasoning

This is the video the other video series was a response to

YouTube - The Eyewitnesses to the Resurrection (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yiMTio_JBk)

LDA

10-08-2009, 11:01 AM

How is it circular reasoning to use the available historical evidence to investigate the answer to a question of what happened in history?

Historical evidence must come from multiple sources, which all verify a similar event around the same time. No source outside of the bible verifies the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Bible claims to be the word of God, claims that Jesus is God, and that he performed miracles and was resurrected. Those are extraordinary claims. If the only "proof" that those claims are correct come from the bible itself, then the proof isn't valid.

It's basically like if I wrote on a napkin "'God wrote this, and I am God, and I did <some crazy thing that defies reason>' - God." You wouldn't believe it, would you?

erowe1

10-08-2009, 11:06 AM

Historical evidence must come from multiple sources, which all verify a similar event around the same time. No source outside of the bible verifies the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Bible claims to be the word of God, claims that Jesus is God, and that he performed miracles and was resurrected. Those are extraordinary claims. If the only "proof" that those claims are correct come from the bible itself, then the proof isn't valid.

It's basically like if I wrote on a napkin "'God wrote this, and I am God, and I did <some crazy thing that defies reason>' - God." You wouldn't believe it, would you?

What you call the Bible does include multiple sources, some of which do corroborate the resurrection of Jesus around the same time (in fact these documents are much closer in time to the events they recount than almost any other ancient historical documents in existence are to the events they recount, which are often taken as shear historical fact). The fact that the Bible also includes books that claim to be the word of God does not detract from that point.

I concede that it would be possible for someone who is not a very clear logical thinker to construct a circular argument that involves using the Bible, and that you have provided an example of what such an argument might look like. But that is a far cry from supporting the claim that any historical argument that uses evidence that is gotten from documents contained in the Bible must, therefore, be such a circular argument, especially when it is concerning a question for which the most important documentary evidence available to us happens to be included in the Bible.

Would you also exclude the Quran from the evidence you use in a historical investigation of the origins of Islam?

YumYum

10-08-2009, 01:15 PM

What you call the Bible does include multiple sources, some of which do corroborate the resurrection of Jesus around the same time (in fact these documents are much closer in time to the events they recount than almost any other ancient historical documents in existence are to the events they recount, which are often taken as shear historical fact). The fact that the Bible also includes books that claim to be the word of God does not detract from that point.

I concede that it would be possible for someone who is not a very clear logical thinker to construct a circular argument that involves using the Bible, and that you have provided an example of what such an argument might look like. But that is a far cry from supporting the claim that any historical argument that uses evidence that is gotten from documents contained in the Bible must, therefore, be such a circular argument, especially when it is concerning a question for which the most important documentary evidence available to us happens to be included in the Bible.

Would you also exclude the Quran from the evidence you use in a historical investigation of the origins of Islam?

The problem that Biblical scholars have with the Gospels is the miracle stories, and the resurrection of Jesus is the most profound. About 6 years ago the world’s top Bible scholars met in Europe and came to a unanimous decision: Jesus did exist on Earth as a man, was arrested, tried and sentenced, and was crucified. How did they come to this conclusion? From the Passion accounts in all four Gospels, and from no outside sources. They felt that the Passion story in all four Gospels supported each other, and while there were very minor discrepancies in each account, overall the different accounts were in harmony. In this case, the Gospels served as a testimony to support each other. These are the same scholars who also discredit the Bible when there is no supportive documentation from outside sources. The question I have is: why is the Gospels good enough to stand on their merit to prove that the Passion story of Jesus took place, but they Gospels are not valid enough to give creditability to the resurrection account? As far as I am concerned, the discrepancies in the resurrection accounts strengthen the historicity of his resurrection as being true, much more than if the accounts were identical, word for word, or copied.

erowe1

10-08-2009, 01:40 PM

The problem that Biblical scholars have with the Gospels is the miracle stories, and the resurrection of Jesus is the most profound. About 6 years ago the world’s top Bible scholars met in Europe and came to a unanimous decision: Jesus did exist on Earth as a man, was arrested, tried and sentenced, and was crucified. How did they come to this conclusion? From the Passion accounts in all four Gospels, and from no outside sources. They felt that the Passion story in all four Gospels supported each other, and while there were very minor discrepancies in each account, overall the different accounts were in harmony. In this case, the Gospels served as a testimony to support each other. These are the same scholars who also discredit the Bible when there is no supportive documentation from outside sources. The question I have is: why is the Gospels good enough to stand on their merit to prove that the Passion story of Jesus took place, but they Gospels are not valid enough to give creditability to the resurrection account? As far as I am concerned, the discrepancies in the resurrection accounts strengthen the historicity of his resurrection as being true, much more than if the accounts were identical, word for word, or copied.

Where did you hear this story? Either this is pure fiction or you're repeating the account of someone who participated in this meeting of the alleged top biblical scholars in the world, who described the meeting that way because he fancies himself or herself to be one of the world's top biblical scholars, and it was a bit of self-aggrandizing.

The topic of the historical Jesus has been a major field of inquiry for more than a century, one that indeed has captured the attention of many of the world's top biblical scholars. And, while all scholarly fields have gatherings where scholars interact with each other in person, it is hardly the case that any single such meeting has ever been the occasion of bringing about some new scholarly consensus on any major question concerning the historicity of Jesus. And the fact that Jesus indeed did live on the earth and was crucified under Pontius Pilate has never been seriously questioned by any top scholars to begin with. But, incidentally, that fact about him is also one that is recounted in other sources outside the Gospels, both Christian and nonchristian.

YumYum

10-08-2009, 02:10 PM

Where did you hear this story? Either this is pure fiction or you're repeating the account of someone who participated in this meeting of the alleged top biblical scholars in the world, who described the meeting that way because he fancies himself or herself to be one of the world's top biblical scholars, and it was a bit of self-aggrandizing.

The topic of the historical Jesus has been a major field of inquiry for more than a century, one that indeed has captured the attention of many of the world's top biblical scholars. And, while all scholarly fields have gatherings where scholars interact with each other in person, it is hardly the case that any single such meeting has ever been the occasion of bringing about some new scholarly consensus on any major question concerning the historicity of Jesus. And the fact that Jesus indeed did live on the earth and was crucified under Pontius Pilate has never been seriously questioned by any top scholars to begin with. But, incidentally, that fact about him is also one that is recounted in other sources outside the Gospels, both Christian and nonchristian.

It was on the cover of Newsweek magazine. You may not be aware of it because it was a meeting of scholars who are not Fundlementalists Christians. What outside, eyewitness sources are you refering to? Most Iof what I have read is "I heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend that..."

erowe1

10-08-2009, 02:49 PM

It was on the cover of Newsweek magazine. You may not be aware of it because it was a meeting of scholars who are not Fundlementalists Christians. What outside, eyewitness sources are you refering to? Most Iof what I have read is "I heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend that..."

Well, since I'm working on my PhD in Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity in one of the top Universities in the world for that field, where the historical critical method is practiced, and not fundamentalism, I would probably know if some revolutionary meeting of the world's top scholars where a new consensus about the historical Jesus was reached ever happened (the very idea of such a thing makes me laugh as I type). But the journalists at Newseek would not. It sounds like shear sensationalism on their part, like just about everything that MSM puts when it comes to reporting news relating to historical study of Jesus and the Bible.

As far as witnesses outside the Gospels, I would first mention the apostle Paul, whose letters are the oldest written sources that speak about the death and resurrection of Jesus. But if you want nonchristian sources, and since it was particularly Jesus' crucifixion you referred to, you might consider the Roman historian Tacitus, who in 115 A.D. wrote, "They [Christians] got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius." (Annals 15.44). Also Mara ben Serapion was a nonchristian whose date we don't exactly know, but it was some time after 70 A.D. but not apparently by very many decades, and he wrote, "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king?" It is clear that ben Serapion was not a Christian, since a few lines later he writes that this wise king, "lived on in his teachings," which is not what a Christian who believed in the resurrection of Jesus would have said. Josephus also refers to Jesus having been crucified by Pilate in Antiquities 18.63. And as of about 160 A.D. the Christian Justin Martyr claimed that the record of Jesus' crucifixion could still be seen in the Acts of Pilate kept in Rome.

iddo

10-08-2009, 03:29 PM

Jesus' resurrection is a historical fact and there is proof.

A miracle being a historical fact is a contradiction of terms.
This is one of Bart Ehrman's favorite topics, you can see some videos of him online, for example:
YouTube - Ehrman-Licona Debate: Can Historians Prove Jesus Rose From The Dead Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyHA3K_6H0g)

erowe1

10-08-2009, 03:40 PM

A miracle being a historical fact is a contradiction of terms.
This is one of Bart Ehrman's favorite topics, you can see some videos of him online, for example:

Ehrman is wrong on that, as he is on many other things, particularly when he gets into apologetics for his rejection of Christianity. To make any claims about the invisible and inscrutible, such as to say that God raised Jesus from the dead, or an alien raised Jesus from the dead, or this whole universe in which Jesus rose from the dead is all a big dream, would be to depart from the field of history. But the question of whether or not Jesus died on the cross is a historical one, as is the question of whether or not his tomb was found empty two days later, as is the question of whether or not other people saw and interacted with him as a living human being on earth after that time, as is the question of whether these people were fully convinced that he had risen from the dead, convinced enough to die rather than deny that claim. It is not ahistorical to claim that the death of Jesus was a historical event and that his resurrection was also a historical event (as one might well conclude from evaluation of the evidence from a historical critical method). It is only ahistorical when one gets into the metaphysical questions that such a claim naturally leads to. The resurrection of Jesus either happened in space and time or it didn't. If it did, then it is a historical fact that it did. If it did not, then it is a historical fact that it did not.

Mitt Romneys sideburns

10-08-2009, 03:40 PM

Nope. He wasnt.

iddo

10-08-2009, 04:18 PM

It is not ahistorical to claim that ... his resurrection was also a historical event (as one might well conclude from evaluation of the evidence from a historical critical method).

Yes it is ahistorical, because you don't have the evidence and couldn't possibly have evidence that makes a miracle told by the gospels be more probable than natural explainations, such as the explaination that all the people who claimed to see Jesus back from the dead were delusional.
For example, in 1968 in Cairo many people saw visions of Virgin Mary appearing before them (for example see here (http://www.zeitun-eg.org/zeitoun1.htm)). Do you think that the most probable explaination to this is that a miracle occured and Virgin Mary really appeared, or do you think that other possible explainations are more likely?

erowe1

10-08-2009, 04:33 PM

Yes it is ahistorical, because you don't have the evidence and couldn't possibly have evidence that makes a miracle told by the gospels be more probable than natural explainations, such as the explaination that all the people who claimed to see Jesus back from the dead were delusional.
For example, in 1968 in Cairo many people saw visions of Virgin Mary appearing before them (for example see here (http://www.zeitun-eg.org/zeitoun1.htm)). Do you think that the most probable explaination to this is that a miracle occured and Virgin Mary really appeared, or do you think that other possible explainations are more likely?

You're mixing together different things. You may or may not be right that I don't have the evidence. But that doesn't make it an ahistorical question. If I don't have the evidence, and it is judged most probably that the event did not happen, then that judgment is a historical one based on historical evidence, not an ahistorical one. Then you say that I couldn't possibly have the evidence, and by that you go on to clarify that you mean I couldn't have the evidence of some allegedly miraculous event actually being a miracle rather than a natural occurrence. On that you are correct. But then that question is no longer a question about whether the event happened (i.e. a historical question), but how it is to be explained metaphysically (i.e. an ahistorical question). The question about whether the event itself happened in space and time is still a historical question, and its historicity is still something that can be evaluated according to the evidence for it weighed against the evidence against it. The separate question of whether the event, if judged historical, was truly miraculous (as opposed to some natural occurrence, or the use of unknown alien technology, or a giant dream) is a metaphysical ahistorical one that is no longer going to be based on historical evidence but on philosophical commitments.

erowe1

10-08-2009, 04:42 PM

Iddo, I haven't seen the video you linked, and I'm not familiar with the person Ehrman debates there. So I don't know if he's at all a good representative of his position. But Ehrman tried using that same argument against William Lane Craig, who has not only a doctorate in New Testament studies, but also, unlike Ehrman, another one in Philosophy. And that kind of question about whether inquiries into the historicity of something like the resurrection can be subsumed into the field of history at all, is something that Craig, unlike Ehrman, has done quite a bit of work in. That debate is also available on Youtube if you're interested, and they get into that very question quite a bit.

Here's part 1 if you're interested.
YouTube - William Lane Craig vs Bart Ehrman 1/12 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjOSNj97_gk)

iddo

10-08-2009, 04:51 PM

erowe1

10-08-2009, 05:10 PM

Let's define event1 = dozens of people claimed to see Jesus alive after he was crucified.
And let's define event2 = Jesus was resurrected.

You can argue that event1 is a historical fact, though I don't think that the evidence for it is strong.
But saying that event2 is a historical fact is a contradiction of terms.

Would you answer my question about the event in Cairo in 1968? Do you think that a miracle is the most probable explaination of that event?

I don't care to take the time to look into the Cairo story enough to decide what I believe about it. But, suffice it to say, whatever I conclude is most probable to have happened based on the evidence, the inquiry into whether it happened or not is a historical one. I will not have departed from the field of history.

Now as for the resurrection, I'm not sure why you chose those two events for your illustration, since doing that didn't help your argument any. It might have been better to consider these two historical questions:
1) Jesus was alive on earth during a certain period of time.
2) Jesus died at a certain point in time.
3) Jesus was again alive on earth during a certain period of time after his death.

All three of those claims are either true or false (my point does not depend on you conceding that they are all true). The question of whether each of those claims is true or false is a historical question in each case. If it is deemed that all three are true, then by definition, that means the resurrection happened in space and time, in other words that it was a historical event. Of course one may well not conclude that all three are true, and thus determine that the resurrection is not a historical event, or one may determine that sufficient evidence is not available to determine if they are true or false. But whichever conclusion one reaches, the process of judging those claims is still a process of historical inquiry.

It is only for those who do judge that all three are true, and who must then reckon with the metaphysical aspect of explaining the occurrence of what is supposed to be impossible by all known natural laws, that one departs ceases to be doing history and enters into something else.

iddo

10-08-2009, 05:15 PM

Here's part 1 if you're interested.
YouTube - William Lane Craig vs Bart Ehrman 1/12 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjOSNj97_gk)

I think I watched that debate in the past. Is it the one with William Lane Craig presenting conditional probability equations? I found that conditional probability argument to be completely ridiculous, because his premises regarding which events are most probables were nonsense, so all he did was to take those nonsesne premises and insert them into the equation...

The video that I linked to was reasonable I guess, at least the video quality is high:)
I think that I remember another debate I watched that was a little better (obviously not the William Lane Craig one), I forget who the other debater was. I remember that I looked at this debate (http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2009/01/bart-ehrman-vs-james-white-debate-mp3.html), but the topic there is different.

iddo

10-08-2009, 05:28 PM

1) Jesus was alive on earth during a certain period of time.
2) Jesus died at a certain point in time.
3) Jesus was again alive on earth during a certain period of time after his death.

Yes all three are either true of false, saying that doesn't carry any meaningful information.
The point is that saying that (3) is a historical fact (which means that it is most probable that event2="Jesus was again alive" indeed occurred) is a contradiction of terms, because it amounts to deriving from the historical evidence that the least likely event (i.e. a miracle) is the most likely event that occurred.

iddo

10-08-2009, 05:43 PM

I don't care to take the time to look into the Cairo story enough to decide what I believe about it. But, suffice it to say, whatever I conclude is most probable to have happened based on the evidence, the inquiry into whether it happened or not is a historical one. I will not have departed from the field of history.

So you're saying that you don't rule out the possibility that based on the evidence you will conclude that the most probable event that happened in Cairo in 1968 is that Virgin Mary really appeared, and if that's what you conclude you will not have departed from the field of history?
Could you tell me what kind of evidence would lead you to conclude that Virgin Mary most probably really appeared in Cairo?

erowe1

10-08-2009, 06:03 PM

Yes all three are either true of false, saying that doesn't carry any meaningful information.
The point is that saying that (3) is a historical fact (which means that it is most probable that event2="Jesus was again alive" indeed occurred) is a contradiction of terms, because it amounts to deriving from the historical evidence that the least likely event (i.e. a miracle) is the most likely event that occurred.

OK. That's different than what I thought you were saying, and different than the argument Ehrman makes that I was thinking of (though he does make yours as well, if I recall). I was addressing the question of what does and does not fall into the realm of historical inquiry. And the question of whether the resurrection happened does, even though the question of whether or not it is to be explained as a miracle rather than some other thing does not.

But your argument here is that it the historical inquiry into whether the resurrection happened must ultimately conclude that it did not happen (i.e. the judgment, which is a historical judgment, is that the resurrection event did not occur). But your argument is still faulty in two ways. First, it presumes that if the resurrection did happen, then it would have been a miracle. Now, I, as a Christian, do believe that it was a miracle (a term that has a theological meaning that is dependent on my world view), but that belief that it was a miracle is not a historical one like the simple belief that it happened is. The possibility that a dead corpse can be reanimated by some yet unknown but not miraculous means is an option, as is the possibility that some other nonchristian world view (perhaps something like that depicted in the Matrix movies) best explains the event. But the historian, in limiting his inquiry to the historical questions, must prescind from trying to answer such things, or at least must acknowledge that when he does try to answer them he is no longer doing history. Second, you presume that, given that a miraculous explanation is the only explanation for a resurrection, it is automatically the least likely explanation. This is not automatically the case, and can only be determined to be the case upon consideration of the details at hand. Yes, it's true that a miracle, if such a thing can ever happen, is an extremely rare and unlikely event by definition. But to say that when a person claims something that you presume to have been a miracle was a historical fact is equivalent to them saying the least likely thing is the most likely thing is to go beyond merely conceding that miracles are extremely unlikely events. To say that the unlikelihood of a given claim of a miracle is so astronomical that it must be the least likely explanation requires that you further weigh that very unlikely claim against the other alternative explanations of the specific evidence, explanations which we may find also to be very unlikely (see Richard Swinburne to have this point treated in more detail). When the true answer is limited to some explanation among a pool of different mutually exclusive claims, all of which are highly unlikely, it is automatically the case that the one claim deemed most probable will be something that is highly unlikely. Ruling out any of those highly unlikely explanations can only be done when the details of the case are considered. William Lane Craig, as well as many other scholars who treat the subject in a more sophisticated way than Bart Ehrman does, has concluded that the historicity of the resurrection is, despite being an intrinsically extremely unlikely event, is the most probable explanation. What Bart Ehrman fallaciously attempts to do is to escape the need to weigh the evidence at all by presupposing that the resurrection must be so unlikely to be ruled out as less likely than other possible explanations automatically. So Ehrman, though his expertise is in historical study of early Christianity, rather than applying that expertise to the question of the historicity of the resurrection, instead steps out of his field and pretends to be a philosopher and deems it unhistorical by the wave of his hand.

iddo

10-08-2009, 06:59 PM

It wasn't my intention to use the word "miracle" as having some special (such as theological) meaning, I just use that word as an abbreviation to "an event that is least likely to occur".

event1 = Jesus was resurrected.
event2 = the people who claimed to see Jesus alive after being crucified were delusional, and just saw visions of their teacher who died.
event3 = some person who looked like Jesus showed up after the crucifiction and that's who everyone saw.
event4 = Jesus' twin brother showed up after the crucifiction.
event5 = some imposter made himself look like Jesus in a sophisticated way after the crucifiction, and deceived everyone.
event6 = story tellers made up the story about the resurrection dozens of years after Jesus died.
event7 = Jesus never existed, the whole story was made up.
event8 = ...
(If I remember correctly Bart Ehrman gave some other possible events, related to tomb raiders etc.)

Don't you agree that event1 is less likely than event2, and also less likely than event3, and also less likely than event4, and so on? Suppose several people told you that they saw, say, Thomas Jefferson yesterday. Would you think that the most likely event that occurred is that Thomas Jefferson was resurrected, or that other such events are more likely?

What Bart Ehrman fallaciously attempts to do is to escape the need to weigh the evidence at all by presupposing that the resurrection must be so unlikely to be ruled out as less likely than other possible explanations automatically.
There's a difference between "rule out" and saying that it's the least likely event. The question was whether there's a proof that the resurrection is a historical fact, meaning that it is the most likely event.
All the historical evidence is of people claiming to see Jesus back from the dead, so how could you conclude from such evidence that the most probable event is the Jesus did rise from the dead? If you answer my question regarding Cairo 1968 it will be helpful in this context.

erowe1

10-08-2009, 07:39 PM

Don't you agree that event1 is less likely than event2, and also less likely than event3, and also less likely than event4, and so on?

No, I don't. I think that, given the available evidence, the historicity of the resurrection explains that evidence better than any of those other options. And coming to that determination could only be done by interacting with the specific details of the case at hand, which is what Ehrman ought to do, and what one might expect him to do, but what he does not do, instead casting aside the question as excluded from the starting point. Craig takes him to task on this point and challenges him on this matter of what is most and least probable in a detailed way, and rather than take on that challenge in kind, Ehrman essentially laughs it off and says that no serious scholar would take such a thing seriously (which is clearly a false statement, and given the scholars Ehrman worked with while at Princeton, he should know that).

iddo

10-09-2009, 02:53 AM

No, I don't. I think that, given the available evidence, the historicity of the resurrection explains that evidence better than any of those other options.

So again, if dozens of people approach you tomorrow and tell you that they saw Thomas Jefferson alive, is that enough evidence for you to determine that the most likely explaination is that Thomas Jefferson was resurrected, and that other events such as the ones I listed are less likely? If yes, why? If not, what's the difference between that and the Gospels' stories?
And if you answer the same question regarding the actual event in Cairo in 1968, that will be helpful.

Baptist

10-09-2009, 03:08 AM

Yes.

+1

erowe1

10-09-2009, 06:30 AM

So again, if dozens of people approach you tomorrow and tell you that they saw Thomas Jefferson alive, is that enough evidence for you to determine that the most likely explaination is that Thomas Jefferson was resurrected, and that other events such as the ones I listed are less likely? If yes, why? If not, what's the difference between that and the Gospels' stories?
And if you answer the same question regarding the actual event in Cairo in 1968, that will be helpful.

No. And it's not analogous. Jesus was seen by and interacted with hundreds of the very same people who knew him personally before his death, including family members, not people centuries later who wouldn't know what he looked like. These appearances were not just individual appearances that could be explained as a bunch of people seeing hallucinations separate from one another. Some of these appearances happened among groups of people, and involved Jesus interacting with them. On at least one occasion he appeared to more than 500 people at one time. Immediately a vibrant movement of people believing in the resurrection of Jesus began out of those who had seen him. These eye witnesses spent the rest of their lives announcing that Jesus had risen from the dead under great persecution and often death, which would not be explainable if the story were a hoax.

Neither your hypothetical Jefferson scenario nor your Cairo story are similar to this.

This historical question has been treated in detail many times with careful consideration of each of your alternate explanations. Some, like Ehrman, choose to wave it away rather than work through the actual details. I personally think the reason that they have already made up their minds not to believe in Jesus, and so the possibility of an honest examination is excluded from the starting point.

Diogenese_

10-09-2009, 08:09 AM

On Tacticus:

Even though the passage is authentic to Tacitus, it might be argued that Tacitus received his information about the origin of the Christian name from Christians themselves. This could be argued on six grounds: (1) Tacitus does not identify his source explicitly. (2) Tacitus anachronistically identifies Pilate as a procurator, when the proper title would have been prefect. (3) Tacitus refers to the founder of the name as 'Christus', while written records would presumably have used the name Jesus. (4) As meticulous as the Romans were, crucifixion records hardly went back nearly a century in time (the Annals being written c. 115 CE). (5) There is insufficient motive for Tacitus to research about this Christus in any detail, as the reference appears in Tacitus merely as an explanation of the origin of the name Christian, which in turn is being described only as an example of Nero's cruelty. (6) Finally, there would be no reason for Tacitus not to take the basic Christian story at face value, especially since the idea that they were of recent origin would correctly classify Christianity as a superstitio.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html

Diogenese_

10-09-2009, 08:10 AM

[QUOTE=erowe1;2358809}Jesus was seen by and interacted with hundreds of the very same people who knew him personally before his death, including family members, not people centuries later who wouldn't know what he looked like. These appearances were not just individual appearances that could be explained as a bunch of people seeing hallucinations separate from one another. Some of these appearances happened among groups of people, and involved Jesus interacting with them. On at least one occasion he appeared to more than 500 people at one time. Immediately a vibrant movement of people believing in the resurrection of Jesus began out of those who had seen him. These eye witnesses spent the rest of their lives announcing that Jesus had risen from the dead under great persecution and often death, which would not be explainable if the story were a hoax..[/QUOTE]

Cite sources please.

Diogenese_

10-09-2009, 08:11 AM

Jesus was seen by and interacted with hundreds of the very same people who knew him personally before his death, including family members, not people centuries later who wouldn't know what he looked like. These appearances were not just individual appearances that could be explained as a bunch of people seeing hallucinations separate from one another. Some of these appearances happened among groups of people, and involved Jesus interacting with them. On at least one occasion he appeared to more than 500 people at one time. Immediately a vibrant movement of people believing in the resurrection of Jesus began out of those who had seen him. These eye witnesses spent the rest of their lives announcing that Jesus had risen from the dead under great persecution and often death, which would not be explainable if the story were a hoax..

Cite sources please.

Diogenese_

10-09-2009, 08:21 AM

I would first mention the apostle Paul, whose letters are the oldest written sources that speak about the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Why doesn't the Apostle Paul talk about the teachings of Jesus?

Josephus also refers to Jesus having been crucified by Pilate in Antiquities 18.63. .

And as of about 160 A.D. the Christian Justin Martyr claimed that the record of Jesus' crucifixion could still be seen in the Acts of Pilate kept in Rome.

From Wikipedia entry "Josephus on Jesus".

Jesus of Nazareth is possibly mentioned in two passages of the work The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, written in the late first century AD. One passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, discusses the career of Jesus. The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it had at a minimum been altered by Christian scribes, and possibly was outright forgery. The other passage simply mentions a Jesus as the brother of a James, possibly James the Just. Most scholars consider this passage genuine,[1] but its authenticity has been disputed by some like Emil Schürer.

......The first to cite this passage of Antiquities was Eusebius, writing in about 324, who quotes the passage [2] in essentially the same form (he has πολλους των Ιουδαιων instead of πολλους Ιουδαιους, and inserts απο before του Ελληνικου).

As usual with ancient texts, the surviving sources for The Antiquities of the Jews are Greek manuscripts, all minuscules, the oldest of which dates from the 11th century.[3] These must all derive from a single exemplar (in uncial) written before 324, date of the Church History of Eusebius. The text of Antiquities appears to have been transmitted in two halves — books 1–10 and books 11–20. But other ad hoc copies of this passage also exist.

The topic of the Testimonium's authenticity has attracted much scholarly discussion. Louis Feldman counts 87 articles published during the period of 1937-1980, "the overwhelming majority of which question its authenticity in whole or in part".[4]

Arguments against authenticity

Origen
The Christian author Origen wrote around the year 240. His writings predate both the earliest known manuscripts of the Testimonium and the earliest quotations of the Testimonium by other writers. In his surviving works Origen fails to mention the Testimonium Flavianum, even though he was clearly familiar with the Antiquities of the Jews, since he mentions the reference by Josephus to Jesus as brother of James, which occurs later in Antiquities of the Jews (xx.9), and also other passages from Antiquities such as the passage about John the Baptist which occurs in the same chapter (xviii) as the Testimonium.[3] Furthermore, Origen states that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ" [5] "he did not accept Jesus as Christ" [6], but the Testimonium declares Jesus to be Christ. Thus it could be inferred that the version of Antiquities available to Origen did not give as positive an endorsement of Jesus as the present-day Testimonium.

On the other hand, while the evidence from Origen suggests that Josephus did not write the Testimonium in its current form, it also demonstrates, according to some scholars, that the version of the Antiquities known to Origen must have written something about Jesus, for otherwise Origen would have no reason to make the claim that Josephus "did not accept Jesus as Christ." [7] It is possible, for example, that Origen read the original version of the Testimonium Flavianum, which textual evidence from Jerome and Michael the Syrian (see below) indicates was worded "he was believed to be the Christ" rather than "he was the Christ." According to Alice Whealey, this original version was also probably what Eusebius also had at his disposal. [8] Whealey has argued that the wording of Michael the Syrian's Testimonium in particular, which employs the word mistabra, meaning "was supposed," has a skeptical connotation, as evidenced in the Syriac New Testament where it is used to translate Greek enomizeto of Luke 3:23. She has argued that Origen's probable exposure to a reading like Greek enomizeto (corresponding to the Syriac mistabra) in the original version of the Testimonium would readily explain Origen's statement that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Christ.[9]

Inconclusive at best.

iddo

10-09-2009, 08:44 AM

I think that the evidence for the resurrection that you mentioned is fanciful, but that's beside the point. Let me just mention as a side note that there isn't even any contemporary evidence that Jesus existed, the first historian who mentions Jesus was born around the same time that Jesus supposedly died, and the historians who lived in the Palestian region at the time of Jesus don't mention him.

The point is that even if all of the evidence that you claim to have was real, the fact still remains that deriving from such evidence that the resurrection is a historical fact is a contradiction of terms, because any of the other explainations is still more probable than a miracle.

Suppose you had a friend who died a few years ago, and yesterday several groups of people independently approached you and told you that they saw your friend alive (and then he disappeared). Suppose that each such group contained hundreds of people, and some of those people are mutual friends who personally knew that friend who died. Based on this evidence, would you say that the most probable event that occurred is that your friend was resurrected? Why would you think that events such as the ones I listed (all of these people are delusional, or they lied to you, or they saw an imposter, or they saw someone who looked like him, and so on and on) aren't more likely events than a resurrection?

Some, like Ehrman, choose to wave it away rather than work through the actual details. I personally think the reason that they have already made up their minds not to believe in Jesus, and so the possibility of an honest examination is excluded from the starting point.
Actually, Ehrman was a devout Christian when he started his research.

erowe1

10-09-2009, 08:50 AM

Why doesn't the Apostle Paul talk about the teachings of Jesus?

From Wikipedia entry "Josephus on Jesus".

Inconclusive at best.

First of all, Paul does refer to the teachings of Jesus on multiple occasions. He refers to a view of divorce and remarriage as that which had been taught by Jesus, and the view is in line with Jesus' teaching on that issue in the Gospels (1 Cor 7:10). He quotes the words Jesus spoken at the last supper and even mentions the context in which Jesus spoke them (1 Cor 11:23-26). He quotes Jesus words, "The laborer is worthy of his wages" (1 Tim 5:18). And throughout Paul's letters he frequently gives instructions that look like echoes of teachings elsewhere attributed to Jesus. There are plenty of works that treat this issue in detail if you're actually interested in it for more than a talking point. See, for example, David Dungan, The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul.

The Josephus passage has also received no shortage of study. You can learn a lot more about it than that silly little snippet you copied from Wikipedia. The current overwhelming majority of scholars who have treated it conclude that it is original to Josephus, but that it includes certain pro-christian rhetoric that was interpolated by later copyists. The arguments for this view are quite strong, and take up more space than I can rehearse here. But you'll find them in books like, Jesus Outside the New Testament, by Robert Van Voorst, and Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, by F. F. Bruce, both of which will steer you to the other major treatments of the topic in their footnotes. At any rate, none of these scholars think the bit about his crucifixion which I quoted above is a later interpolation. If you want to parrot what you read somewhere when you went looking for the way that a Jesus skeptic is supposed to answer that question, then you can call it inconclusive at best. But once you've actually read the arguments in detail regarding the style and vocabulary of Josephus and the way this passage interlocks with others in his Antiquities, and is referred back to in at least one later point in the work, you may find yourself compelled to accept a less pessimistic view of it. And I gave several nonchristian sources, so even if you exclude Josephus, you still have Tacitus and Ben Serapion (as well as later rabbinic Jewish literature, which I didn't mention).

erowe1

10-09-2009, 08:56 AM

Let me just mention as a side note that there isn't even any contemporary evidence that Jesus existed, the first historian who mentions Jesus was born around the same time that Jesus supposedly died, and the historians who lived in the Palestian region at the time of Jesus don't mention him.

Totally false. Instead of regurgitating what you read in sensationalistic websites like jesusneverexisted.com, consider doing actual research and availing yourself of the original sources themselves. There is only one historian from Palestine from the time of Jesus (not multiple different such historians as you imply). His name was Josephus, and he does mention Jesus. He not only mentions him in the controversial passage I talked about above, but also in at least one other undisputed passage, where he refers to the death of James the brother of Jesus, a detail which corroborates the Gospels and Paul's epistles (Ant. 20.9.1). He also extensively talks about John the Baptist (Ant. 18.5.2).

erowe1

10-09-2009, 08:57 AM

Actually, Ehrman was a devout Christian when he started his research.

I'm quite familiar with Ehrman. I'm not sure what research you're referring to. But according to his own testimony in his much maligned book, Misquoting Jesus, he departed from his faith early in his doctoral studies. As of the time of any of these anti-christian apologetic arguments that he has written or given in debates, he was a firmly committed nonchristian. I can't deny that I am suspicious that that deeply entrenched religious commitment has something to do with his refusal to engage the evidence for the resurrection.

iddo

10-09-2009, 09:02 AM

erowe1

10-09-2009, 09:37 AM

What's false in what I said? Do you dispute that Josephus was born around the time that Jesus supposedly died? Or do you dispute that there were other historians who lived in the generation before Josephus?
Anyway, I prefer not to argue about the evidence itself, it's beside the point that interests me, so I apologize that I brought it up.

I assumed the historian you meant was Tacitus. But, yes, Josephus was probably born around that time. I dispute that we have any writings from other historians from Palestine in the generation before Josephus who do not mention Jesus. The only individuals whose writings we still have who might be called historians, and who lived in Palestine in the generation before Josephus, are the very ones who wrote the 4 gospels (which would not normally be called histories, but Luke in particular is often called a historian on account of his book of Acts). Aside from them and Josephus, there aren't any Palestinian historians from the 1st century AD. Other Greco-Roman historians who came slightly later than Josephus, and who mention Jesus (but who do not say much about him) are Seutonius and Pliny the Younger. It is probable that a historian named Thallos, who was of the generation before Josephus, also wrote about the crucifixion and described the eclipse that happened at that time, but we no copies of his work, only references to it by other later writers who mention that passage of his. When you confine yourself to such a narrow window of time as the generation before Josephus, and such a small geographic area as Judea, and when you consider how much of what was written in antiquity is now lost and how little, relatively speaking, we have, it should be no surprise that the pickings are slim.

YumYum

10-09-2009, 10:17 AM

I assumed the historian you meant was Tacitus. But, yes, Josephus was probably born around that time. I dispute that we have any writings from other historians from Palestine in the generation before Josephus who do not mention Jesus. The only individuals whose writings we still have who might be called historians, and who lived in Palestine in the generation before Josephus, are the very ones who wrote the 4 gospels (which would not normally be called histories, but Luke in particular is often called a historian on account of his book of Acts). Aside from them and Josephus, there aren't any Palestinian historians from the 1st century AD. Other Greco-Roman historians who came slightly later than Josephus, and who mention Jesus (but who do not say much about him) are Seutonius and Pliny the Younger. It is probable that a historian named Thallos, who was of the generation before Josephus, also wrote about the crucifixion and described the eclipse that happened at that time, but we no copies of his work, only references to it by other later writers who mention that passage of his. When you confine yourself to such a narrow window of time as the generation before Josephus, and such a small geographic area as Judea, and when you consider how much of what was written in antiquity is now lost and how little, relatively speaking, we have, it should be no surprise that the pickings are slim.

Interesting information. One thing people forget is that Jesus ministry was a little over three years; some contend it was only a year. In any case, that amount of time goes by very quickly, so by the time people where talking about him and the news about his activities was spreading: he had already been crucified. Another interesting thought is that 'oral tradition' took precident over anything written in the time of Jesus. Clement didn't trust the written word, he trusted oral tradition more. Christian copiest took liberties with adding their two cents worth, so the original text has been polluted. I do not want to get off topic, and my question would be a good topic on another thread, but I am wondering: Do you believe God wrote the Bible "word for word"? And if so, all of the Bible, or only parts of it?

iddo

10-09-2009, 10:17 AM

there aren't any Palestinian historians from the 1st century AD.

Not sure about that, and it's not my field of knowledge or interest, but from googling a little bit now it appears that at least there were contemporary Roman historians, so it's kinda strange because Roman historians are supposed to write about contemporary events that took place within the regions of the Roman empire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Velleius_Paterculus

Would you please answer this question that I previously asked:
Suppose you had a friend who died a few years ago, and yesterday several groups of people independently approached you and told you that they saw your friend alive (and then he disappeared). Suppose that each such group contained hundreds of people, and some of those people are mutual friends who personally knew that friend who died. Based on this evidence, would you say that the most probable event that occurred is that your friend was resurrected? Why would you think that events such as the ones I listed (all of these people are delusional, or they lied to you, or they saw an imposter, or they saw someone who looked like him, and so on and on) aren't more likely events than a resurrection?

erowe1

10-09-2009, 10:28 AM

Not sure about that, and it's not my field of knowledge or interest, but from googling a little bit now it appears that at least there were contemporary Roman historians, so it's kinda strange because Roman historians are supposed to write about contemporary events that took place within the regions of the Roman empire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Velleius_Paterculus

Would you please answer this question that I previously asked:
Suppose you had a friend who died a few years ago, and yesterday several groups of people independently approached you and told you that they saw your friend alive (and then he disappeared). Suppose that each such group contained hundreds of people, and some of those people are mutual friends who personally knew that friend who died. Based on this evidence, would you say that the most probable event that occurred is that your friend was resurrected? Why would you think that events such as the ones I listed (all of these people are delusional, or they lied to you, or they saw an imposter, or they saw someone who looked like him, and so on and on) aren't more likely events than a resurrection?

That is a good find. I'm not familiar with that historian. However, I see nothing in the wiki description (which, granted, may well lack important info) that indicates he wrote about the affairs of Palestine, that he lived there, or that he was especially familiar with anyone from there. If he died in A.D 31, as that article states, then it would be unlikely that any mention of Jesus, whose ministry in Palestine had only just happened, and whose reputation had not yet spread out of that region, would have found a way into his works.

As for your question about the possibility of believing in a friend being resurrected. If the details were as you describe, and if the evidence were really as overwhelming both for his death and his subsequent life again, as they are for Jesus, then I believe that would believe it. What would be a real test for someone in that situation would be to see just how convinced they are that what they say is true is true, and if they would even be martyred for holding that extraordinary belief before relinquishing it.

YumYum

10-09-2009, 10:32 AM

Not sure about that, and it's not my field of knowledge or interest, but from googling a little bit now it appears that at least there were contemporary Roman historians, so it's kinda strange because Roman historians are supposed to write about contemporary events that took place within the regions of the Roman empire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Velleius_Paterculus

Would you please answer this question that I previously asked:
Suppose you had a friend who died a few years ago, and yesterday several groups of people independently approached you and told you that they saw your friend alive (and then he disappeared). Suppose that each such group contained hundreds of people, and some of those people are mutual friends who personally knew that friend who died. Based on this evidence, would you say that the most probable event that occurred is that your friend was resurrected? Why would you think that events such as the ones I listed (all of these people are delusional, or they lied to you, or they saw an imposter, or they saw someone who looked like him, and so on and on) aren't more likely events than a resurrection?

I wouldn't think that he was resurrected; I would think that he couldn't have died. If I knew for a fact that he had died, and hundreds of people told me he reappeared alive then disappeared, I would probably think it was his ghost, even though I don't believe in ghost. One thing I have learned is that the Christian view of "resurrection" is taken from the Greeks. The Greeks believed in a "resurrection". Belief in a resurrection took hold in the Jewish community around 165 B.C., and created divisions among the Jews. The Sadducees didn't believe in a resurrection. The Pharisees, who did believe in the Greek's concept of a resurrection, became a sect around 165 B.C. Heathen teachings were infiltrating the Jewish religion at this time. This helped expand the Disporia of the Jews and helped to bring on the Macabian Wars. Many Jews did not want their religion polluted with Greek teachings, which included the "resurrection" theory.

iddo

10-09-2009, 11:09 AM

As for your question about the possibility of believing in a friend being resurrected. If the details were as you describe, and if the evidence were really as overwhelming both for his death and his subsequent life again, as they are for Jesus, then I believe that would believe it. What would be a real test for someone in that situation would be to see just how convinced they are that what they say is true is true, and if they would even be martyred for holding that extraordinary belief before relinquishing it.

Sorry for nitpicking, but I didn't ask whether you would believe that your friend was resurrected. Many people believe in certain things even though they would acknowledge that that those things are the most likely to be true. I asked whether you think that the most likely event is that your friend was indeed resurrected, assuming in addition that some of the people who told you that were willing to die and not rescind their story. If that's what you think, would you please explain why you consider resurrection to be more probable than all the other possible events? For example, the event that hundreds of delusional people, who are willing to die for their delusions, came to believe the story that they're telling you about your friend. I assume that you have never seen anyone resurrected, but you do acknowledge that there are delusional people who believe in all kinds of fantastic nonsense, no? Not sure which kinds of people you consider the most delusional (obviously not Christians:)). How about 12 million Mormons? Or billion+ Muslims who are willing to die for their delusions? So why would you say that resurrection is the most likely event based on that evidence, even though the other possible events that I described refer to stuff that sometimes actually happens in the world, unlike resurrections. Suppose we say that the chance that 2 people will tell you that they saw your dead friend alive is 1/2^100, and the chance that hundreds of people will tell you this story is 1/2^1000, why would resurrection have a higher probability than 1/2^1000 in your opinion?

erowe1

10-09-2009, 11:25 AM

Sorry for nitpicking, but I didn't ask whether you would believe that your friend was resurrected. Many people believe in certain things even though they would acknowledge that that those things are the most likely to be true. I asked whether you think that the most likely event is that your friend was indeed resurrected, assuming in addition that some of the people who told you that were willing to die and not rescind their story. If that's what you think, would you please explain why you consider resurrection to be more probable than all the other possible events? For example, the event that hundreds of delusional people, who are willing to die for their delusions, came to believe the story that they're telling you about your friend. I assume that you have never seen anyone resurrected, but you do acknowledge that there are delusional people who believe in all kinds of fantastic nonsense, no? Not sure which kinds of people you consider the most delusional (obviously not Christians:)). How about 12 million Mormons? Or billion+ Muslims who are willing to die for their delusions? So why would you say that resurrection is the most likely event based on that evidence, even though the other possible events that I described refer to stuff that sometimes actually happens in the world, unlike resurrections. Suppose we say that the chance that 2 people will tell you that they saw your dead friend alive is 1/2^100, and the chance that hundreds of people will tell you this story is 1/2^1000, why would resurrection have a higher probability than 1/2^1000 in your opinion?

It's good that you're willing to revisit the actual matter of the evidence itself. After your previous comment I expected that you, like Ehrman, had decided against doing that. Yes, at least if the case is the same as it was for Jesus, I would believe that the most probable explanation for the evidence is a resurrection. The probability that it happened (however incredibly small that is) is far greater than the much smaller probability that the data can be explained with it not having happen. Again, for those who, unlike Ehrman, truly are willing to see the case for this precise question made in detail, I recommend the relevant works of William Lane Craig and Richard Swinburne.

iddo

10-09-2009, 11:56 AM

If that's what you think, would you please explain why you consider resurrection to be more probable than all the other possible events?

Yes, at least if the case is the same as it was for Jesus, I would believe that the most probable explanation for the evidence is a resurrection. The probability that it happened (however incredibly small that is) is far greater than the much smaller probability that the data can be explained with it not having happen. Again, for those who, unlike Ehrman, truly are willing to see the case for this precise question made in detail, I recommend the relevant works of William Lane Craig and Richard Swinburne.

The case is obviously stronger than it was for Jesus, because those hundreds of people approached you personally and told you the story, so we rule out the options that the people who claimed to see the dead person alive didn't actually exist and the story about them was faked years later, and so on.
You neglected to explain why you consider the probability of resurrection higher given all the details in the concocted story that I presented. There's no reason to refer to works of other Christian authors, because the evidence is my concocted story is agreed upon in advance, and this evidence is stronger than in the Jesus story. Would you please consider everything I wrote and explain why you think that resurrection is the event with highest probability in my concocted story?

erowe1

10-09-2009, 12:00 PM

The case is obviously stronger than it was for Jesus, because those hundreds of people approached you personally and told you the story, so we rule out the options that the people who claimed to see the dead person alive didn't actually exist and the story about them was faked years later, and so on.
You neglected to explain why you consider the probability of resurrection higher given all the details in the concocted story that I presented. There's no reason to refer to works of other Christian authors, because the evidence is my concocted story is agreed upon in advance, and this evidence is stronger than in the Jesus story. Would you please consider everything I wrote and explain why you think that resurrection is the event with highest probability in my concocted story?

It is necessary to refer to books. Books are hundreds of pages. Forum comments are not. If you are interested enough in the question to read the hundreds of pages of necessary evaluation of the evidence, then you'll have to read books. I'm sorry, but wikipedia just won't do. I mentioned two that address the argument in precisely the way you're demanding with consideration of actual probabilities of events. The ball is in your court. And I disagree that the evidence in your concocted story was stronger. It looked much weaker to me, since you explained it in a way that included the possibility of people's visions of my friend being the result of delusion, which is not a possibility that exists of the early eye witnesses to Jesus' resurrection (which you'll learn if you ever decide to investigate the evidence). That's why, when I responded to your question I clarified that I would consider resurrection to be the most probable explanation only if the situation were truly like that of Jesus' resurrection.