Real debate of the evidence for resurrection

[Zzyzx]

.
From a current thread:

Testimonials are worth nothing in debate.

Which is why there is so little real debate in any of these forums...opinions abide.

Let's really debate the presence or absence of verifiable evidence that Jesus died and came back to life -- excluding testimonials and opinions.

[The Tanager]

It is wise to be aware of bias in evaluation of the credibility of sources of information.

Salesman of cars (or religions) are expected to be biased in favor of their product. A buyer of cars is well advised to consult independent testing or rating organizations.

One considering the 'resurrection' is well advised to ask for evidence from sources other than those with a vested interest in promoting the tale.

Of course it is wise to beware of bias, I haven't claimed otherwise. There is no equivalent to this "independent testing or rating organization" in an investigation of the Resurrection. Josephus was biased. He's trying to sell a competing car, to keep the analogy up. Every source is selling events from their biased picture of the world. It is wise to beware of all biases but not to throw out sources full stop because of a bias.

I have consistently asked for ADDITIONAL information to verify the accounts and have said nothing about discounting.

I'm sorry for my confusion in reading your posts, then. My case is that Jesus' resurrection should be understood as an historical event. I would make a case in two steps. First, I would say let's gather the data that needs to be explained. Second, we look at theories to explain this data. I would say there are at least three pieces of historical data:

1. Jesus' disciples claimed to have experienced appearances of a resurrected Jesus.
2. Jesus' tomb was found empty.
3. The rise of the Christian faith.

From this (later) I would argue that the theory which best explains this set of data is that Jesus' Resurrection is historical. Clearly, this is not an argument that "Some Christians said Jesus resurrected, therefore Jesus resurrected." But we need to take this one step at a time, if we want to have a real discussion about the argument. I will stop now to make sure there are no further critiques (or to clear up misunderstandings) at this point. Once that is cleared away (if there is anything to clear away), I will offer support for each datum in turn and we can discuss each one as much as anyone wants.

[Zzyzx]

.

Jesus' disciples claimed to have experienced appearances of a resurrected Jesus.

Unverified claims of postmortem sightings are suspicious at best. Many people claim to have seen Elvis. Do we accept Elvis sightings as evidence that he came back to life?

Paul/Saul's account of 'meeting' the deceased in a 'vision' (or delusion, or hallucination, or deception, or whatever it was) is particularly questionable.

Jesus' tomb was found empty.

There are unverified tales that the tomb was found empty (with or without angels).

Even if a tomb was found empty, do empty tombs affirm that the deceased came back to life and left? If so, 'resurrection' is commonplace since there are many empty tombs.

The rise of the Christian faith

Christianity arose among Gentiles hundreds of miles from Judea – upon promotion by Paul/Saul and associates. It was popularized by becoming official state religion of the Roman empire.

Jews in the area did not accept claims that Jesus was the messiah. He was run out of his hometown (by people who knew him best?) as a fraud. A good conman knows to work well away from home and from people who knew him before he took up the con.

[Zzyzx]

.

Why should personal testimony be excluded from a proper historical investigation? What kinds of evidence are you looking for? Scientific?

Multiple DISCONNECTED / independent sources would be a good start.

What do you mean by "disconnected"?

I use 'disconnected' to mean: not related, or not having any clear purpose or pattern: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/
not connected : separate www.merriam-webster.com

Another term 'independent'
not influenced or controlled in any way by other people, events, or things https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... ndependent

someone or something that is free from the influence or control of another.
www.yourdictionary.com

Four salesman promoting the same company are NOT disconnected. Four preachers promoting the same religion are not disconnected. Four people copying from one another and/or a common source are not disconnected.

Writings selected for inclusion in company promotional literature and not disconnected.

[The Tanager]

I use 'disconnected' to mean: not related, or not having any clear purpose or pattern: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/
not connected : separate www.merriam-webster.com

Another term 'independent'
not influenced or controlled in any way by other people, events, or things https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... ndependent

someone or something that is free from the influence or control of another.
www.yourdictionary.com

Four salesman promoting the same company are NOT disconnected. Four preachers promoting the same religion are not disconnected. Four people copying from one another and/or a common source are not disconnected.

Writings selected for inclusion in company promotional literature and not disconnected.

I doubt anyone would believe that Jesus really rose from the dead and not become a follower. If they were unimpressed by such an event, why would they want to write about it? Thus, you seem to be faulting the Christian claim because it lacks something that we have no good reason to believe would actually occur.

What we do have are multiple, independent sources within the various Gospel accounts. Yes the Gospels share some sources, but all each have their own material too. If we aren't allowing the Gospels to be used at all, then this simply is not a "real debate of the evidence of the resurrection." The conclusion that the resurrection didn't occur is simply begged by ruling out the sources that all historical scholars sift through.

[Zzyzx]

.

What we do have are multiple, independent sources within the various Gospel accounts.

Yup, four gospel writers, don't know who they were, writing decades after the claimed events and conversations, don't know where they got their information, know they copied from each other or a common source, had writings selected by churchmen to represent a religious point of view.

By what reasoning can those accounts be considered independent sources?

By what reasoning can those accounts be considered reliable reporting of events in the real world?

If one writer copies another's mythology, does that make the story true and accurate?

Again, four salesmen whose writings selected for company promotional literature are NOT 'independent' sources.

When challenged to produce actually independent sources to support supernatural claims and stories, Bible believers resort to making excuses to 'explain' why they cannot.

Evidently a lot of 'gods' were said to have died and arose from the dead (perhaps a convincing tale to people of the era). The 'evidence' for Christian's claim is comparable to the others – 'Take storyteller's word for it'

[The Tanager]

Yup, four gospel writers, don't know who they were, writing decades after the claimed events and conversations, don't know where they got their information, know they copied from each other or a common source, had writings selected by churchmen to represent a religious point of view.

And so is the same with most ancient sources. We have people, often writing even longer after the claimed events than the Gospel writers, some we may not know exactly who they were since they aren't state writers, don't know where they got their information, except for some possible earlier sources, selected by government officials to represent a particular point of view.

Historians use the Gospels as historical sources, not throwing everything said out or accepting everything the claim as historically reliable. They are as good as sources to use (and often better sources because of how they were preserved, copied, when written, etc.) as the other ancient historical sources.

By what reasoning can those accounts be considered independent sources?

By what historians consider independent sources. This means looking at the sources within the Gospels, not ignoring the Gospels completely.

By what reasoning can those accounts be considered reliable reporting of events in the real world?

It depends on what part is being talked about, what other sources say, etc.

If one writer copies another's mythology, does that make the story true and accurate?

Of course not and no one has claimed it does.

Evidently a lot of 'gods' were said to have died and arose from the dead (perhaps a convincing tale to people of the era).

If you are talking about comparisons to the Roman mystery cults, then the scholars left behind those parallel theories half a century ago, for good reasons.

So, again, I will say that if we aren't allowing the Gospels to be used in this discussion (not as a blind accept everything but simply used as a historical source to try to get at the historical data) then this thread is simply not a "real debate of the evidence of the resurrection." The conclusion that the resurrection didn't occur would be simply begged by ruling out the sources that all historical scholars accept and try to sift through.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 36 by The Tanager]

The Apologetic argument for 'resurrection' appears to grudgingly admit that there is no confirming evidence outside the gospels themselves BUT "other historical stories can't be confirmed either so I should not be expected to provide confirmation to my claims and stories. Just take their word for it."
.

Historians use the Gospels as historical sources, not throwing everything said out or accepting everything the claim as historically reliable.

Do historians recommend making life decisions based on the 'historical reliability' of ancient documents?

Do Christians (supposedly) base life decisions on the unverified reliability of gospels?

Do historians, in professional literature, accept supernatural claims in the gospels as 'historically reliable'?

Do Christians consult historians regarding reliability of gospel 'miracle' tales?

They are as good as sources to use (and often better sources because of how they were preserved, copied, when written, etc.) as the other ancient historical sources.

Good sources to use for what?

By what reasoning can those accounts be considered independent sources?

By what historians consider independent sources. This means looking at the sources within the Gospels, not ignoring the Gospels completely.

Without ignoring the Gospels completely, what information do they provide that can be verified by OTHER sources? Can any of the miracle claims be verified?

By what reasoning can those accounts be considered reliable reporting of events in the real world?

It depends on what part is being talked about, what other sources say, etc.

Okay, let's talk about other sources to support Gospel claims of virgin birth, star stopping over Bethlehem, loaves and fish, resurrection.

If one writer copies another's mythology, does that make the story true and accurate?

Of course not and no one has claimed it does.

It seems as though Apologists offer the Gospel writers as 'independent' sources that verify truth of their tales. What other evidence is offered to support Gospel tales of supernatural feats?

Evidently a lot of 'gods' were said to have died and arose from the dead (perhaps a convincing tale to people of the era).

If you are talking about comparisons to the Roman mystery cults, then the scholars left behind those parallel theories half a century ago, for good reasons.

Many scholars long ago left behind the 'miracle' claims of the Gospels.

So, again, I will say that if we aren't allowing the Gospels to be used in this discussion (not as a blind accept everything but simply used as a historical source to try to get at the historical data) then this thread is simply not a "real debate of the evidence of the resurrection."

The Gospels are 'allowed' to tell the story. The gospels cannot be used to verify themselves (except perhaps in church). What evidence can be presented to verify that the various events happened in the real world as described? What evidence verifies that the Gospels are not fantasy and fiction?

The conclusion that the resurrection didn't occur would be simply begged by ruling out the sources that all historical scholars accept and try to sift through.

The conclusion that the resurrection has not been shown to have occurred casts doubt on the validity of Christianity – which depends on 'believe on faith so you can go to heaven after you die'

[marco]

I would say there are at least three pieces of historical data:

1. Jesus' disciples claimed to have experienced appearances of a resurrected Jesus.
2. Jesus' tomb was found empty.
3. The rise of the Christian faith.

This is a brave submission. It is refreshing to have such statements that can be examined and commented on.

1. The reporters claimed that the disciples claimed. We must trust that the reporters are reporting accurately. If we examine other reports from them and find exaggerations, this damages point 1. Read Matthew on the hour of Christ's death.

The disciples, missing their master, may well have felt his presence and this has been reported as an actual sighting, with details added to back up this literal claim. As an example of religious enthusiasm giving rise to actual appearance we can take the Fatima children. The lady they saw - and they were honest kids - was what Renaissance artists painted, the very same lady that they would have seen in statue form. But they certainly "saw" something, as did the apostles perhaps. But - you will say - Jesus spoke. And so too did Mary at Fatima.

Yes, the Fatima apparition and the apostolic vision may be literally true. But we have enough reason to doubt.

2. The empty tomb is evidence that the body in it was taken away. The differences in detail of the reports are perhaps of no great significance - the empty tomb is the focus. This leaves us with the hypothesis that somebody took the body or the body rose from the dead. Have we any reason to suspect that somebody removed the body? Have we reports of the sepulchre being examined for hidden exits? We know the sepulchre was "presented" by one Joseph, an odd detail to say the least. And from what source do we get information about where Jesus wandered off to? From an angel. Yes, angels may well communicate but I think we have enough questions here to leave aside an actual resurrection. We might add that had the soldiers broken Christ's legs, as they should have done, he would not have walked away, given he still carried the wounds of his crucifixion. How much did it cost for Christ not to have his legs broken?

3. It doesn't take a resurrection to raise a faith. We had the popular worship of Isis at the time and soldiers liked Mithras. In Rome Jupiter was still popular. 700 years later Muhammad lured millions to Islam - no resurrection. So faiths arise and faiths go. But, you might say, we have the very strong Catholic Church flourishing through the centuries. What fed her? I think powerful individuals, raised to power on rumour, made use of the sparks to fan them into flame. Lenin in the same way made use of the "eeskra", the spark of communism. And if we are seduced by numbers, we have a billion Muslims who have an entirely different story about Jesus.

As for the resurrection being an "historical event" - it wasn't. The stories and rumours may have some historical basis and the empty tomb might well be true. I would have thought that Pilate's report on the risen Christ would have made interesting reading. We don't have it. Instead we have reports that his followers said: "I saw the Lord" just as we have zealous children's report: "I saw Our Lady."

There is the element of WANTING to believe it all, for it is a nice tale. And our desire to believe often overrules our reasoning. Children at Christmas can vouch for that.

[The Tanager]

The Apologetic argument for 'resurrection' appears to grudgingly admit that there is no confirming evidence outside the gospels themselves BUT "other historical stories can't be confirmed either so I should not be expected to provide confirmation to my claims and stories. Just take their word for it."

That is not the argument. The point I've been making is that we shouldn't expect non-Christian sources saying there is a resurrection (because people would convert to Christianity if they believed it occurred and then they'd be Christian sources), so we can't rationally fault their non-existence.

Do historians recommend making life decisions based on the 'historical reliability' of ancient documents?

Do Christians (supposedly) base life decisions on the unverified reliability of gospels?

Do historians, in professional literature, accept supernatural claims in the gospels as 'historically reliable'?

Do Christians consult historians regarding reliability of gospel 'miracle' tales?

All irrelevant to a real discussion of the evidence for the Resurrection.

Good sources to use for what?

To gain a better idea of what happened back then, through sifting through historical sources.

Okay, let's talk about other sources to support Gospel claims of virgin birth, star stopping over Bethlehem, loaves and fish, resurrection.

No, let's have a real discussion of the evidence for the Resurrection, like this thread is named. That is what I'll move to do in my future posts. I will address more foundational questions if they continue to be raised.

[Zzyzx]

.

The point I've been making is that we shouldn't expect non-Christian sources saying there is a resurrection (because people would convert to Christianity if they believed it occurred

Bold added

You cannot legitimately say what people would do. The most you can legitimately say that it seems to you as though people seeing evidence of 'resurrection' would convert.

and then they'd be Christian sources), so we can't rationally fault their non-existence.

Can you cite reports from Christian sources OTHER than the Gospel tales with personal knowledge of the resurrection? (Note: 'He said that she saw or She said she saw� is NOT a report from personal knowledge)