What would it take to prove that Jesus rose from the dead?

[McCulloch]

What would it take to prove that Jesus rose from the dead. giving that it happened way before cameras etc were invented?

P4JC

Good question P4JC.

[dgruber]

I would say that Joey's criteria is pretty darn good.

I would agree with you completely. I will address part of this in my response to cnorman below.

Sorry, but you're still not getting this.

Nothing is being "turned around" on anyone. There is only one question that is asked whenever something is to be proved: "What is your evidence?" That's true whether we're talking about a criminal trial, a scientific survey or experiment, or an assertion about a historical event. The nature and value of evidence can only be determined after that evidence is in hand, not before.

You claim that the question you ask is "simple." Is it? Let's see.

Suppose I specified the evidence as you are apparently asking.

"I want to see the autograph (that is, the original) of a letter from Pontius Pilate that contains references to Jesus, the Crucifixion, and at least mentions an alleged Resurrection. That would be convincing, though not of course conclusive."

What happens now? Will you fly off to Rome, Cairo and Jerusalem and begin combing through archives in search of such a letter?

Of course not. Demands of such specificity are absurd, of course.

The fact is, a priori demands of ANY degree of specificity are absurd. You find the evidence first, THEN you evaluate it. How could it be any other way?

Once again - what have you got?

Actually I do get it and you are not correct. In criminal trials and in criminal law it is clear that one needs to prove motive and intent in order to convict someone of the crime they are being tried for. It is the defenses job to cloud that evidence or cast doubt upon it. I agree with you that if one claims that Jesus rose from the dead, then it is their job to prove it and perfectly fine for doubters to ask, "What is the evidence?"

That is not the situation in this case. This is a question with no claim having been made. Joey started this out well with what he said he required. You seem to not be reading the question and understanding this is a thread to itself.

As far as the autograph is concerned, that is the right avenue for this thread. If an autograph would be proof to you then that is fine.

What bothers me the most is that many on this site, and many who have been here a while, seem to have seen so many threads that they automatically revert to a "typical" response instead of looking at the thread itself. Some, including myself, would find it interesting to truly know what some may require for proof.

You ask what have I got? I'm not even arguing for or against this proof. I'm simply arguing against the technique of ignoring the question.

[Goose]

I would say that Joey's criteria is pretty darn good.

I would agree with you completely. I will address part of this in my response to cnorman below.

Sorry, but you're still not getting this.

Nothing is being "turned around" on anyone. There is only one question that is asked whenever something is to be proved: "What is your evidence?" That's true whether we're talking about a criminal trial, a scientific survey or experiment, or an assertion about a historical event. The nature and value of evidence can only be determined after that evidence is in hand, not before.

You claim that the question you ask is "simple." Is it? Let's see.

Suppose I specified the evidence as you are apparently asking.

"I want to see the autograph (that is, the original) of a letter from Pontius Pilate that contains references to Jesus, the Crucifixion, and at least mentions an alleged Resurrection. That would be convincing, though not of course conclusive."

What happens now? Will you fly off to Rome, Cairo and Jerusalem and begin combing through archives in search of such a letter?

Of course not. Demands of such specificity are absurd, of course.

The fact is, a priori demands of ANY degree of specificity are absurd. You find the evidence first, THEN you evaluate it. How could it be any other way?

Once again - what have you got?

Actually I do get it and you are not correct. In criminal trials and in criminal law it is clear that one needs to prove motive and intent in order to convict someone of the crime they are being tried for. It is the defenses job to cloud that evidence or cast doubt upon it...

Quite right. Cnorman's assertion earlier...

I have said this before: In what field of study does one ask others to provide standards of proof, then set about trying to fulfill them? None.

... is not strictly speaking true. In Law there are criteria set for what constitutes admissible evidence. Evidence that does not meet this criteria is considered inadmissible. Therefore, the standrds of proof are pre-set, so to speak, by others and cnorman's claim is false. And this is what is being asked, in a round about way, in this thread.

[cnorman18]

I would say that Joey's criteria is pretty darn good.

I would agree with you completely. I will address part of this in my response to cnorman below.

Sorry, but you're still not getting this.

Nothing is being "turned around" on anyone. There is only one question that is asked whenever something is to be proved: "What is your evidence?" That's true whether we're talking about a criminal trial, a scientific survey or experiment, or an assertion about a historical event. The nature and value of evidence can only be determined after that evidence is in hand, not before.

You claim that the question you ask is "simple." Is it? Let's see.

Suppose I specified the evidence as you are apparently asking.

"I want to see the autograph (that is, the original) of a letter from Pontius Pilate that contains references to Jesus, the Crucifixion, and at least mentions an alleged Resurrection. That would be convincing, though not of course conclusive."

What happens now? Will you fly off to Rome, Cairo and Jerusalem and begin combing through archives in search of such a letter?

Of course not. Demands of such specificity are absurd, of course.

The fact is, a priori demands of ANY degree of specificity are absurd. You find the evidence first, THEN you evaluate it. How could it be any other way?

Once again - what have you got?

Actually I do get it and you are not correct. In criminal trials and in criminal law it is clear that one needs to prove motive and intent in order to convict someone of the crime they are being tried for. It is the defenses job to cloud that evidence or cast doubt upon it. I agree with you that if one claims that Jesus rose from the dead, then it is their job to prove it and perfectly fine for doubters to ask, "What is the evidence?"

That is not the situation in this case. This is a question with no claim having been made. Joey started this out well with what he said he required. You seem to not be reading the question and understanding this is a thread to itself.

As far as the autograph is concerned, that is the right avenue for this thread. If an autograph would be proof to you then that is fine.

What bothers me the most is that many on this site, and many who have been here a while, seem to have seen so many threads that they automatically revert to a "typical" response instead of looking at the thread itself. Some, including myself, would find it interesting to truly know what some may require for proof.

You ask what have I got? I'm not even arguing for or against this proof. I'm simply arguing against the technique of ignoring the question.

I'm not ignoring the question. I gave you a direct answer as an exemplar, and demonstrated that it is absurd and meaningless in debate. I maintain that ANY specification of what evidence would be sufficient is absurd.

Now if you just want to engage in speculation, with the stipulation that it proves nothing, fine: In that case, I want to see multiple autograph documents that refer to the Resurrection, written by eyewitnesses in their own hand. I want to see the verified chain of custody of those documents from the day of the Crucifixion till today.

And while you're at it, I want an Aston Martin DB8.

Now what have you got? How has this advanced the debate? What have we proven?

You asked; there's your answer. What are you going to do with it?

If you ever want to talk about how actual historical research happens, let me know. My fantasy life is full enough without adding this kind of silliness.

[dgruber]

Cnorman18.....Relax....Go back and look at the OP. There is no reason for the sarcasm. I am perfectly aware of how historical research happens and would be happy to talk about it at anytime.

I am also aware that knowing how you feel about proof does nothing to enhance the debate other than provide insight into what the proof would be for you. I don't know you so it is interesting to hear yours and other's takes.

Again, I would be happy to discuss the way historical research is conducted.

[McCulloch]

In criminal trials and in criminal law it is clear that one needs to prove motive and intent in order to convict someone of the crime they are being tried for. It is the defenses job to cloud that evidence or cast doubt upon it...In Law there are criteria set for what constitutes admissible evidence. Evidence that does not meet this criteria is considered inadmissible. Therefore, the standrds of proof are pre-set, so to speak, by others and cnorman's claim is false. And this is what is being asked, in a round about way, in this thread.

Law as practiced, is not a field of study. When academics study law, they do not apply the same criteria in the classroom as would apply in a court room. Your analogy is misleading.

[dgruber]

McCulloch....

I was replying to Cnorman's comment that specifically referred to a criminal trial.

[Goose]

In criminal trials and in criminal law it is clear that one needs to prove motive and intent in order to convict someone of the crime they are being tried for. It is the defenses job to cloud that evidence or cast doubt upon it...In Law there are criteria set for what constitutes admissible evidence. Evidence that does not meet this criteria is considered inadmissible. Therefore, the standrds of proof are pre-set, so to speak, by others and cnorman's claim is false. And this is what is being asked, in a round about way, in this thread.

Law as practiced, is not a field of study. When academics study law, they do not apply the same criteria in the classroom as would apply in a court room. Your analogy is misleading.

Of course Law is a field of study. What do you think Law students are studing if not the field of Law?

Further, we are trying to answer a question and come to a verdict so to speak just as a court of Law might. The analogy stands.

[McCulloch]

Of course Law is a field of study. What do you think Law students are studing if not the field of Law?

Further, we are trying to answer a question and come to a verdict so to speak just as a court of Law might. The analogy stands.

But the question is one of history not law. If you applied the principles of jurisprudence to any question of history, you would not come to any valid conclusions. So, as CNorman pointed out, in answering any other historical question: Did Arthur pull the sword from the stone? Did Caesar cross the Rubicon? What impact did a railroad have on an African colony? How many U.S. Ambassadors have been killed by terrorists? Did Jesus of Nazareth rise from the dead after being crucified by the Romans? If you wish to put forth an assertion regarding the answer to any of these historical questions, show us your evidence and your reasoning. And be prepared to defend it. Don't depend on your critics to come up with a standard, other than the standard used by academic historians.

As far as I can tell what you've got is this: The somewhat contradictory writings of the promoters of a new religion writing decades after the events. And a few secular and Jewish references to the existence of a dedicated community of believers in the late first century.

Correct me if I am wrong. Is there anything else?

[Goose]

Don't depend on your critics to come up with a standard, other than the standard used by academic historians.

Are you willing to debate the Rez one-on-one using this standard and another event from a similar time frame and region, commonly accepted as true, to help keep our biases in check while assessing the evidence? I'll let you pick the other event we'll use as a baseline. That sounds fair don't you think? What do you say? If not, maybe cnorman will be game...

[cnorman18]

Don't depend on your critics to come up with a standard, other than the standard used by academic historians.

Are you willing to debate the Rez one-on-one using this standard and another event from a similar time frame and region, commonly accepted as true, to help keep our biases in check while assessing the evidence? I'll let you pick the other event we'll use as a baseline. That sounds fair don't you think? What do you say? If not, maybe cnorman will be game...

I'd say McCulloch pretty well summed up the evidence. Before we drag this old dead horse out and start beating it again, IS there anything else?

If there isn't, I'd say the debate is over. The evidence is in, has been examined, and it is not sufficient to prove that the Resurrection actually happened.

Please note that I am not saying that the Resurrection did NOT happen; that isn't the subject, and the evidence certainly doesn't disprove it, either. But, absent new evidence, there is absolutely no way that the Resurrection can be said to be proven.