Evidence for the Resurrection

[Goose]

In my opinion, when determining the truthfulness of Christianity virtually everything is secondary in importance to the resurrection of Jesus Christ (the Rez). Paul made this clear when he said in 1 Corinthians 15:14, "if Christ has not been raised, then our message means nothing and your faith means nothing." I believe the truthfulness of Christianity hangs primarily on the Rez.

I also believe there is a solid case for the Rez that meets a reasonable burden of proof for matters of history. Equal, at least, to that which we accept for other pivotal events in ancient history accepted as true and rarely questioned.

As indicated by the spectrum of the below quoted scholars and historians, I propose we can be reasonably certain some historical "facts" are probably true regardless of our philosophical predispositions. We can then look at theories that account for those facts.

The Methodology:

A "fact" shouldn't necessarily need to pass all of the listed criteria to be considered probable. Failing any one particular criterion does not necessarily make the fact false. Indeed very few, if any at all, ancient historical "facts" we rarely question would adequately pass all the requests of such a rigorous criteria as set out below. However, a fact that fails to pass a single criterion we would be justified in believing it to be improbable. Passing one or two should be sufficient to have the "fact" be at least considered probable. If a fact passes three I think we can be confident that it is very probable and so on. This methodology is not fool-proof of course as it is open to our biases and ultimately subjective to a degree. However, this seems to be the only way (I know of) to establish a reasonably objective treatment of evidence - i.e. pass the evidence through a standard set of criteria using a consistent methodology that can be applied to ALL ancient events. So, using criteria such as (but not limited to)...

• 1. Eyewitness attestation
  2. Early attestation (the earlier the better - written during the lifetime of possible eyewitnesses is preferred)
  3. Multiple independent attestation (independent does not mean non-Christian, but rather independent from other sources)
  4. Enemy or neutral source attestation
  5. The Principle of Embarrassment (If it's embarrassing or harmful to the case it is very likely that it is authentic or actually happened. It's very unlikely to have been propaganda simply “made up”)

Marcus J. Borg, a liberal theologian and "fellow" of the Jesus Seminar wrote, "The logic is straightforward: if a tradition appears in an early source and in another independent source, then not only is it early, but it is also unlikely to have been made up." Marcus J. Borg and N. T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus (1999), p. 12.

Historian Paul Maier notes, "Many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient source, while two or three sources in agreement generally render the fact unimpeachable." Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks a Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church (1991), p. 197.


As a side note, I’m confident we can reconcile alleged contradictions in the NT, demonstrate traditional authorship of the Gospels/Acts (i.g. The disciple Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew and so on. Just as we would for any other ancient document, see here ), and demonstrate the synoptics were written before 70AD. However, we'll forgo debate over the preceding to avoid rabbit trails and make it more of a challenge for the Rez theory. So, for the sake of argument in this thread we will assume:

• 1. The Bible is errant and not inspired by God. We'll consider it merely a collection of ancient writings.
  2. The Gospels/Acts are technically anonymous and may or may not be eyewitness accounts.
  3. The Gospels and other Christian/non-Christian accounts contain minor errors and contradictions in secondary details.
  4. The Gospels/Acts were written after 70AD, but no later than 100AD.
  5. Mark was the first Gospel written. The authors of Luke and Matthew used some of Mark as a source for their Gospels.

We could submit many, but to start, here are 5 "facts" that should pass enough of the listed criteria to be considered probable:

FACT 1. Jesus’ crucifixion and death

• a) Early (and enemy) attestation from the Apostle Paul - (1 Thessalonians 5:9-10, 2:15; 1 Corinthians 1:23, 2:2 and early creedal passages in 1 Corinthians 15:3 - ca. 50-60AD)
  b) Multiple attestation in all four Gospels and the Book of Acts (ca. 70-100AD)
  c) Enemy/neutral attestation from Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18:64 - 96AD)
  d) Enemy/neutral attestation from Roman historian Tacitus (Annals 15:44 - ca. 115AD)
  e) Enemy/neutral attestation from Greek satirical writer Lucian (The Death of Peregrine, 11-13 - ca. 150AD)
  f) Enemy/neutral attestation from Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a - ca. 200AD)
  g) Principle of Embarrassment applies to the humiliating suffering and death of a supposed Messiah and the Son of God (as well as Principle of Dissimilarity from Jewish anticipation of a military type leader in the Messiah).

Atheist NT scholar Gerd Lüdemann acknowledged, "Jesus' death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable." Gerd Ludemann, The Resurrection of Christ, pg 50.

The critical NT scholar and Jesus Seminar co-founder John Dominic Crossan wrote, "Jesus’ death by execution under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For, if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixion, we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus...We have, in other words, not just Christian witnesses but one major Jewish and one major pagan historian who both agree on three points concerning Jesus: there was a movement, there was an execution because of that movement, but, despite that execution, there was a continuation of the movement." John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, pg. 5

Crossan also said, "Despite the differences between the studied impartiality of Josephus and the sneering partiality of Tacitus, they agree on three rather basic facts. First, there was some sort of a movement connected with Jesus. Second, he was executed by official authority presumably to stop the movement. Third, rather than being stopped, the movement continued to spread. There remain, therefore, these three: movement, execution, continuation. But the greatest of these is continuation." John Dominic Crossan, The Essential Jesus, p. 7.

John P. Meier wrote, "For two obvious reasons practically no one would deny the fact that Jesus was executed by crucifixion: (1) This central event is reported or alluded to not only by the vast majority of NT authors, but also by Josephus and Tacitus...(2) Such an embarrassing event created a major obstacle to converting Jews and Gentiles alike...that the Church struggled to overcome..." (John P. Meier, "The Circle of the Twelve: Did It Exist during Jesus' Public Ministry?", Journal of Biblical Literature 116 [1997] p. 664–665).


FACT 2. The tomb was discovered empty.

• a) Early attestation from Paul - he implies an empty tomb (1 Cor. 15:3-4)
  b) Multiple attestation from all four Gospels (the very early Pre-Markan Passion source probably contained the empty tomb)
  c) The disciples were accused of stealing Jesus’ body by unbelieving Jews - indirect enemy confirmation that the tomb was empty (Matthew 28, Christian apologist Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 108 - ca. 150AD; Christian apologist Tertullian De Spectaculis 30 - ca. 200AD)
  d) The principle of embarrassment applies to the empty tomb reported as having been discovered by women
  e) We have no record of Jesus’ corpse being produced only accusations that the disciples stole the body.
  f) Setting the stage for the empty tomb was the honourable burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimethea (another fact we could admit as number 6 - but won't as it isn't really necessary to do so). It is attested by all four Gospels. As well Paul mentions the burial of Jesus(1 Cor 15). It also is strengthened by the Principle of Embarrassment where a Jewish member of the council, rather than a disciple or family member, that condemned Jesus was reported as honourably burring Jesus. This would have been offensive to the disciples and as such is unlikely to be a fabrication.

Liberal theologian John A. T. Robinson commented on the burial of Jesus, "[it is] one of the earliest and best–attested facts about Jesus." John A. T. Robinson, The Human Face of God (1973), p. 131.

William Wand, a past Oxford University church historian wrote, "All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favour [of the empty tomb], and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other grounds than that of scientific history." William Wand, Christianity: A Historical Religion? (1972), p. 93-94

NT critic D. H. Van Daalen wrote, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions." D.H. Van Daalen, The Real Resurrection(1972), p. 41.


FACT 3. The apostles sincerely believed Jesus rose from the dead and then appeared to them. So sincerely that some were willing to endure persecution and possibly even death because of this belief:

Claims of appearances to the disciples:

• a) Early (and enemy) attestation from Paul (1 Cor. 15:4-8)
  b) Multiple attestation from all four Gospels (even without the later addition of 16:9-20, early attestation in Mark's Gospel predicts the Rez and appearances in 8:31, 9:31, 10:34 and suggests there will be appearances made by Jesus 14:28, 16:6-7)
  c) Multiple attestation from the Book of Acts (ch. 1-5, 10, 13, 17)
  d) Possible neutral/enemy attestation from Tacitus (he may be inadvertently providing evidence that the apostles at least believed Jesus appeared to them in Annals 15:44 when he says, "...[Christianity] thus checked for the moment [by the crucifixion of Jesus], again broke out not only in Judea...")
  e) Possible neutral/enemy attestation from Josephus (he may be reporting that the disciples at least believed Jesus appeared to them in Antiquities 18)
  f) The Principle of Dissimilarity applies to the notion of a man/Messiah resurrecting from the dead before the end of time was contrary to Jewish belief and therefore reduces the odds it was "made up."
  g) Principle of Embarrassment applies to the evidence that some disciples at the first instance did not believe but had doubts that Jesus was alive (Matthew 28:17, Luke 24:36-38, John 20:24-25).

Persecution and death of some disciples:

• a) Early attestation from the Book of Acts (ch. 12 - death of James brother of John)
  b) Early attestation from Clement of Rome (1 Clement 5 - ca. 95AD)
  c) Attestation from Ignatius (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 3:2-3 - ca. 110AD)
  d) Attestation from Polycarp (Letter to the Philippians 9 - ca. 110AD)
  e) Attestation from Dionysius of Corinth (ca. 170AD - quoted by Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 2:25:8)
  f) Attestation from Tertullian (Scorpiace 15 - ca. 200AD)
  g) Attestation from Origen (Contra Celsum 2:56,77 - ca. 230-250AD)

Atheist NT scholar Gerd Ludemann said, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ." Gerd Ludemann, What Really Happened to Jesus? A Historical Approach to the Resurrection, (1995) p. 80. (It should be noted Ludemann believes these were visions)

Paula Fredriksen, a sceptical historian and scholar of religious studies, said in an interview with Peter Jennings (ABC) entitled The Search for Jesus in July 2000, "I know in [the disciples] own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That's what they say and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that that's what they saw. I'm not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn't there. I don't know what they saw. But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something."



FACT 4. Paul, an enemy and persecutor of the church (Acts 8:3, 1 Cor. 15:9, Gal. 1:13) was transformed and became a prolific apostle because of his belief that a risen Jesus appeared to him. He was persecuted and reported as martyred.

Appearances of Jesus to Paul and his conversion:

• a) Early, multiple and eyewitness attestation from Paul himself (1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1, Phil. 3)
  b) Multiple and early attestation from the Book of Acts (ch. 9, 22, 26)

Paul’s suffering/martyrdom:

• a) Early, multiple and eyewitness attestation from Paul for his suffering (2 Cor. 11, Phil. 1)
  b) Multiple and early attestation from Book of Acts (ch. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23)
  c) Early attestation from Clement of Rome (1 Clement 5)
  d) Attestation from Polycarp (Letter to the Philippians 9:2)
  e) Attestation from Tertullian (Scorpiace 15 and also quoted by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History 2:25:8)
  f) Attestation from Dionysius of Corinth (c. 170AD - quoted by Eusebius in EH 2:25:8)
  g) Attestation from Origen (Commentary on Genesis as quoted by Eusebius in EH 3:1)

FACT 5. James, brother of Jesus (Mark 6:3) and sceptic of His claims before the appearance of Jesus to him, was transformed and became a leader in the Church in Jerusalem. He was reported as martyred.

• a) Principle of Embarrassment applies as Jesus' own family and brother James were described as sceptical prior to appearances (multiply attested - Matthew 13:57, Mark 3:21, 6:3-4, John 7:4-5)
  b) Jesus appeared alive to James after His death (early and enemy attestation from Paul - 1 Cor. 15:7)
  c) James is later described as an apostle by Paul(Gal 1:19) and leader in the early church in Jerusalem (Gal 2:9,12 and Acts 15)
  d) Suffered and martyred - Enemy/neutral attestation from Josephus (ca. 96AD - Antiquities 20), further multiple attestation from Hegesippus (ca. 160AD - as quoted by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History 2:23), and Clement of Alexandria (ca. 180-200AD as quoted by Eusebius in EH 2:1).

Note that none of these 5 facts are supernatural or hard to believe on their own. They are all well attested with early and multiple sources. By any reasonable historical methodology these should be considered solid facts. Keep in mind on their own each fact presented does not build a strong case for the Rez. However, it is as a collective unit we must consider the evidence. We are looking for the best explanation that accounts for ALL the evidence. I posit the theory that God resurrected Jesus from the dead best accounts for ALL the evidence and combines explanatory power and scope given the context of Jesus' life and the claims made of Him and by Him.

Question for debate: Is the Resurrection the best explanation for ALL the evidence (i.e. the five facts presented)? Or, is there a better competing theory that accounts for ALL the evidence?


Additional considerations and requests:
1. Persons who side with the weight of evidence, what the evidence suggests, and cogent arguments supported by good evidence could be described as taking a rational position. We would be justified in deeming "irrational" a position that denies evidence with out good reason and opposes strong arguments to side with weak unsupported arguments. On this, we can all agree.

2. As history deals more with degrees of probability rather than absolute certainty I would suggest the following. A single theory that has explanatory scope and power, given the context of surrounding events, and accounts for ALL the evidence should be considered more probable over a compilation of several theories stacked upon one another in an ad hoc manner. Especially if those ad hoc theories are speculation rich and evidence poor.

3. Please supply the methodology/criteria for questioning any one of these 5 facts (or any other evidence one wishes to refute or admit for consideration). We can then apply this methodology to other ancient historical facts. This will help us determine if the objection has credibility or is merely stemming from a bias against either the supernatural or Christianity. Simply making the objection, for example, that we cannot trust anything written by a Christian because they were biased is very problematic. Applying that overly simplistic criterion to the rest of ancient history would call almost all of it into question (even most of modern history).

I'll look forward to reading the responses.

[McCulloch]

Question for debate: Is the Resurrection the best explanation for ALL the evidence (i.e. the five facts presented)? Or, is there a better competing theory that accounts for ALL the evidence?

The problem is that the evidence does not support the alleged five facts.

[Cathar1950]

Question for debate: Is the Resurrection the best explanation for ALL the evidence (i.e. the five facts presented)? Or, is there a better competing theory that accounts for ALL the evidence?

The problem is that the evidence does not support the alleged five facts.

Given the other post by You, Zzyzx, MrWhy, stevencarrwork, and Beto I would say it is obvious you can't call story lines facts and there is no compelling reason to think they were much like the literature you find at the time they were written in the late first to second century. The writings and editing doesn't seems to have stoped there but continued for another 100 to 200 years as they started using them as the only legal versions. But the claims of stories are not evidence of facts. As one scholar points out Irenaeus who is often used to support the gospels authenticity claim Jesus did not die under Herod or Pilate but lived to be 50 and lived in the East. His information came from Polycarp(Remsberg, The Christ, p. 221). Given the conflicting stories and all the other gospel being based on earlier work, including John that at least is aware of the others, that the authors felt needed change. This does not sound like fact. It sounds like growing fiction that served the communities that venerated them or at least the stories.
I guess the big answer is yes here are many alternative explainations for the belief in the resurrection, with it meaning many different things. The one thing we can rule out is that we have any facts and the stories don't help settle the problems as they are the problem.

[stevencarrwork]

This is actually disappointing. No one has even attempted to address the question for debate.

Question for debate: Is the Resurrection the best explanation for ALL the evidence (i.e. the five facts presented)? Or, is there a better competing theory that accounts for ALL the evidence?

It is you who claims a miracle happened, so it is up to you to produce evidence for it.

Some religious lunatics , some of whom claimed to have gone to Heaven, started a religion.

Heaven knows why they did.

But I don't have to explain the thought processes of Paul, a lunatic who claimed to have gone to heaven.

It is your job to take something written by somebody who claimed to have visited Heaven and tell us that it is history.

[Goose]

Sceptic: Show me some evidence for your supernatural claim.
Christian: Ok, here it is, (see the OP)...
Sceptic: I don't accept that evidence because it is a supernatural claim.
Christian:

If the problem begins because one asks for proof of a supernatural claim, why would you offer a second one as evidence? Aren't you the one causing the circular reasoning?

Have a look at the OP again. There is nothing supernatural about the five facts there. What is the best explanation for them? Why don't you take a crack at the question for debate in the OP. I don't think you have yet.

Question for debate: Is the Resurrection the best explanation for ALL the evidence (i.e. the five facts presented)? Or, is there a better competing theory that accounts for ALL the evidence?

[Goose]

In short, Paul simply has no idea that a corpse was supposed to be raised from the ground.

Paul, being a Pharisee likely believed in the physical resurrection of the dead, yes or no?

From earlier in the chapter that you quoted out of context Paul is reminding the Corinthians of what he previously taught them which he had learned probably from John, Peter and James (Galatians 1,2).

1Co 15:3-4

For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures.

The Greek word for raised here is egeiro "(through the idea of collecting one’s faculties); to waken (transitively or intransitively), that is, rouse (literally from sleep, from sitting or lying, from disease, from death; or figuratively from obscurity, inactivity, ruins, nonexistence): - awake, lift (up), raise (again, up), rear up, (a-) rise (again, up), stand, take up." (Strong's)
Note that buried is immediately contrasted with raised. In other words, died then rose. Paul is very clearly making a physical comparison here and through out the chapter he uses physical analogies such as seeds that are buried and then come up different but still the same seed that was sewn - it has a physical body.

Paul speaks of glory and then in 42-44 Paul uses examples of sewing and raising again. In verse 44 Paul says "raised a spiritual body" not "raised a spirit". There is connotation of physicality. How much physicality is open to interpretation I suppose. But to jump to a purely spiritual experience is an unwarranted exegesis of the text. I don't see how one could interpret that purely as a resurrection of the spirit only.

But, for the sake of argument let's say it was a spiritual resurrection Paul was speaking of. All you're really doing then is questioning the nature of Jesus' resurrected body. It's not an argument against a resurrection. Whether or not Paul believed it to be bodily or spiritual, there is still a resurrection claimed by Paul. A spiritual Rez does not account for an empty tomb. You still need to account for the disciples sincere belief and willingness to be persecuted and the change of James. Not to mention why Paul became a Christian in the first place.

[Goose]

What principle of embarrasment?

According to the earliest Gospel, the resurrection was announced by a man, not a woman.

Women initially discovered the empty tomb.

Paul nowhere implies ANY tomb, empty or otherwise.

Sure he does "...was buried, he was raised..." The Greek word used for buried is thapto - "A primary verb; to celebrate funeral rites, that is, inter: - bury." (Strong's). Jewish burial customs were to place the body in a tomb of sorts(see John 11:38 for an example and here for more). I said this in an earlier post. If I were to say I went to bed last night and rose up this morning. It's implied my bed is now empty. That's a no-brainer.

Why did people convert to Jesus-worship and scoff at the idea of God choosing to raise a corpse?

I could care less. The important thing is what did those who knew Christ believe. Later converts weren't in a position to know the truth.

[Goose]

Maybe you can start by citing where Mark lifted the Rez from Homer and the LXX.

In 2 Kings 4:27-37 a distraught parent of an only child comes to Elisha just as in Mark 5:22-24 (which continues in verses 35-43) a distraught parent of an only child comes to Jesus,pleading for help.

In both stories someone tries to discourage the parent from bothering Elisha and Jesus.

In both stories it is unclear to some people in the story whether the child is dead ,dying or asleep.

In both stories the child is in a house some distance away.


In both stories a second source comes from the house and confirms that the child is dead.

In both stories Jesus and Elisha continue anyway to the house.

In both stories the parent precedes Elisha or Jesus

In both stories Elisha and Jesus seek a high degree of privacy by turning people out of the house before their miracle .

The story in Mark is such an obvious rewrite of the story in Kings that if I remind you that Jairus in Mark 5 falls at Jesus's feet, you can guess what the parent in 2 Kings 4 did.

As confirmation that Mark used 2 Kings 4 for his stories of the feeding of a crowd, and the raising of a dead child, Mark 5:42 says that after the miracle, the parents were 'amazed with great amazement' (exestesan ekstasei megale), while 2 Kings 4:13 we have 'amazed with all amazement' (exestesas... pasan ten ekstasin tauten)

Or take another miracle...

Jesus in Luke 7 raises the son of a widow from the dead. In 1 Kings 17, Elijah raises the son of a widow from the dead. Both stories employ exactly the same words - and he gave him to his mother.The Greek is 'kai edoken auton te metri autou', copied word for word from the Septuagint version of 1 Kings 17.

Did Luke use 1 Kings 17 as a basis for his story? Jesus met the widow at the gate of a city. Elijah met his widow in 1 Kings 17:10. It should come as no surprise that it was at the gate of a city. Luke 7 also copies other phrases from the Septuagint version of 1 Kings 17.

Luke writes 'tay pulay tays poleos kai idoo' (to the gate of a city and behold), which is almost identical to the Old Testament Greek of 'tou pulona tays poleos kai idoo'.

How much ripping-off would you like?

I asked for where Mark lifted the Rez, but thanks for the cut and paste all the same. I see no need to address a cut and paste when someone else already has word for word here. They have been found under whelming. There are more differences than similarities and the similarities that do exist are superficial and overstated. Ever heard the old saying history tends to repeat itself?

[Goose]

I think Goose might need more examples of the plagiarism found in the Gospels.

In Jonah the sailors and Jonah are in a boat during a dreadful storm just as in Mark 4 the disciples and Jesus are on a boat. The sailors look for Jonah and find him asleep. The disciples look for Jesus and find him asleep.

This could be a coincidence except that this story is the one and only time Jesus is ever shown sleeping in the entire New Testament.


Sleeping in a tiny, tiny boat on the point of sinking, during a storm of such severity that experienced sailors were unable to cope, is quite a feat.


One best selling commentary on Matthew in the UK is by J.C.Fenton, who was Principal of Lichfield Theological College. He says about Matthew 8:24 'but he was asleep recalls Jonah 1:5, Jonah ...was fast asleep.'

He says about Matthew 8:25:- 'they went and woke him, saying, Save (soson), Lord (kyrie), we are perishing. (apollymetha) Cf Jonah 1:6, So the captain came and said to him, What do you mean, you sleeper? Arise, call upon your God (Kyrie)! Perhaps your God will give a thought to us. (Greek 'save us' diasose), that we do not perish (apollometha). He says about Matthew 8:27 'And the men (hoi de anthropoi)... Are they an echo of Jonah 1:16 -Then the men (hoi andres) feared the Lord exceedingly.?' When else does Matthew call the disciples 'the men'?

Mark also is quite aware that the story comes from Jonah, as he also draws heavily upon it.

In both Mark 4 and Jonah the witnesses after the sea-calming miracle are portrayed as afraid and awe-struck. In Mark 4 'feared with great fear (ephobethesan phobon megan)'. In Jonah (LXX) 'feared the men with great fear' (ephobethesan hoi andres phobon megan)

Again, your cut and paste taken to taskhere.

Mark's Gospel is anonymous, makes no mention of sources, or where the stories came from, or gives any attempt at chronology.

Yup, already gave you anonymity in the OP. Many ancient texts are technically anonymous. Other ancient works don't give sources either. Chronology isn't as important as truthfulness in my opinion.

It has NONE of the markers which ancient historians used to indicate that they were writing history.

Which markers would those be? I would REALLY like to hear your methodology for dismissing the Gospels as fiction (though I'm not sure you're suggesting they are entirely fiction). I'd then like to apply that methodology to some other comparable ancient works and see what happens. BTW, the Gospels are not technically speaking "histories" in the strictest sense of the word. But then you probably knew that.

And it relies heavily on the LXX for its stories.

"Heavily" is a big stretch.

[Goose]

FACT 5. James, brother of Jesus (Mark 6:3) and sceptic of His claims before the appearance of Jesus to him, was transformed and became a leader in the Church in Jerusalem. He was reported as martyred.

Name one first century source which said that James was a 'sceptic' and then was 'transformed'

That cuts both ways. I could ask the same question. Name one first century source that says James was not a "sceptic" and "transformed".

However, the argument runs thus. Jesus had brothers:
Mark 6:3

This[Jesus] is the builder, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon, isn't it? His sisters are here with us, aren't they?" And they were offended by him. (ISV)

They were sceptical:
Mark 3:21

When his family[friends - ASV] heard about it, they went to restrain him. For they kept saying, "He's out of his mind!"(ISV)

John 7:3-5

So his brothers said to him, "You should leave this place and go to Judea, so that your disciples can see the works that you're doing. For no one acts in secret if he wants to be known publicly. If you're going to do these things, you should reveal yourself to the world!" For not even his brothers believed in him.(ISV)

Also, at the crucifixion Jesus gives care of his mother not to one of his brothers but to a disciple, probably John. Lastly, the principle of embarrassment makes it highly unlikely this was made up.

Jesus had brothers. One of which was named James. His brothers doubt Jesus. Therefore James the brother of Jesus, was a sceptic. It's a cogent inductive argument.

James is later depicted as a leader and pillar in the early Church despite possible consequences. If he wasn't "transformed," what happened? He went from sceptic to leader to martyr, what would you call it?

Hey, if you don't buy that James was a sceptic or saw the risen Jesus you still need to account for his conversion. He was a devout Jew that assumed a leadership role in a heretical cult - Christianity - despite possible persecution. There must be a reason. What is it?

Give one word by this James where he said he saw a corpse rise from the dead.

Oh, it has to come FROM James? Why? It's not good enough to come from Paul who met with James? If you are going to impose as an historical criteria that we can only know things about a person based solely upon what they themselves say, that will pose a big problem for historians.

How could James have been a 'sceptic'?

Didn't he know that when his brother was born, his mother knew she was carrying her Lord and Saviour?

Didn't he know that his brother had had a miraculous conception and angels and magi had visited the family, who had been spared by a miraculous intervention?

Historically speaking we aren't told why James was a sceptic. We can only infer why. If your mother continually droned on about how your older brother was a special gift from God how would you feel? At best you're calling into question Biblical inerrancy and the birth narratives with this line of reasoning.

Hadn't James observed 30 years of Jesus literally Christ like behaviour?

Hadn't James observed that Jesus was the only Jew who never made sin offerings?

If you had a sibling that thought he was perfect and God's gift to the universe, how would you feel?

By contast, the Gospels claim that John the Baptist leapt for joy in the womb (!!!) when in the prescence of Jesus. (Ludicrous nonsense, but that is what it says)

If that was the effect Jesus had on his cousin, how could James have been a sceptic, especially considering the amazing events that had happened to his family

Never underestimate the power of sibling rivalry.

But as Goose is trumpeting the fact that James was a sceptic and then preached a bodily resurrection, perhaps he can find one person in the first century who claimed that was true..

Nice strawman. I didn't claim "James was a sceptic and then preached a bodily resurrection." You added the bodily resurrection part.

You can give up finding James himself saying that. That at least would be evidence of a claim by James to be a sceptic and then be transformed...

You've created an unnecessary expectation. Why does James HAVE to say it himself? Admittedly, it would be helpful if we had that. We don't. But, I've got the next best thing. I've got a strong inductive argument based upon evidence of what those that knew him said.

And Goose hasn't even got that.

I don't need it. You only THINK I do because it serves your argument. Maybe you can find a quote from the first century BC that said Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon.

[Goose]

Question for debate: Is the Resurrection the best explanation for ALL the evidence (i.e. the five facts presented)? Or, is there a better competing theory that accounts for ALL the evidence?

The age of the text, and absence of non-biblical corroboration makes the evidence very light weight. The weight of the evidence is reduced to null when you consider the extraordinary nature of the claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In face of such an extraordinary claim, the evidence you present is less plausible than some other explanations.

If we take everything into context historically speaking, the amount and quality of evidence we have compared to other events of the time is actually, I think, impressive for Christianity. I would even venture to say it IS extraordinary. So, the call for Extra Ordinary evidence becomes very subjective and ultimately impossible to implement. The bar can arbitrarily be raised to suit ones presuppositions. What is extra ordinary for me is not for you and vice versa. That's why I propose we use a standard methodology and not simply dismiss evidence that supports a supernatural claim on the sole basis that it supports a supernatural claim or is supernatural in nature. There should be no reason for one to object to this unless they have a presupposition toward the supernatural.

We have better evidence of alien spaceships and abductions than we have of a resurrection...

Yes, you and Cmass are in agreement that there seems to be evidence for aliens.