Debatable "Facts" For A Historical Resurrection

[bluegreenearth]

If we accept the consensus opinion that Jesus was a historical person, it becomes evident that there are very few “facts� about him that most historians agree with. So, the proposed minimal facts need to be examined further:

Jesus died by crucifixion – First of all, the manner in which Jesus died is irrelevant to the resurrection claim. In any case, this idea is derived from the four canonical gospels and a few of the 2nd century non-Christian texts. Mark, being the earliest of the four gospels, is the first to mention crucifixion as the manor in which Jesus was executed. However, no one has been able to successfully demonstrate that Mark was written by an eyewitness. Furthermore, it cannot be verified that the anonymous author knew any eyewitnesses. It is, at best, a second hand source as are the other later gospels. All that can be ascertained from the earliest authentic Epistles is that Paul believed Jesus died in some unspecified way, but he never actually observed the event. Most of the extra-Biblical non-Christian texts were written too late to be trustworthy, and Josephus’s two references of Jesus are demonstrable Christian forgeries. Anything else posited about this “fact� is speculative.

The Disciples believed Jesus appeared to them – This is not equivalent to stating “Jesus definitely appeared to the Disciples.� The operative word in this case is “believed.� Nevertheless, this assertion is claimed to be supported by the gospel accounts and that of Paul. The unreliability of the gospels has already been demonstrated. Paul claims to have spoken with Peter, James, and John about their post-resurrection encounters with Jesus. However, the grammar of the Greek phrases Paul used to describe their experiences could imply they all experienced Jesus as a vision rather than an encounter with the physical body of Jesus. It is also relevant that Paul never refers to those men as disciples but as Apostles. Apostles are defined as those people who've received knowledge of Jesus through revelation (i.e. visions). If Paul was aware that these men actually knew Jesus prior to his crucifixion, then he failed to indicate as such in his writings. Since he was writing long before the gospel authors wrote their accounts, it is logically invalid to graft the concept of a physically resurrected Jesus onto Paul’s understanding of those three Apostles’ experiences. When you read Paul’s letters from the perspective that the gospels weren’t written yet, it isn’t justifiable to assume he, Peter, James, and John witnessed anything other than visions. It is very plausible that the idea of Jesus appearing bodily to the disciples was a later theological invention similar to the example of the resurrected Saints in the book of Matthew. In any case, even if we assume Paul is being truthful about his conversations with Peter, James, and John, his recounting of Jesus appearing to them is still second hand information.

Paul was a persecutor of Christians but suddenly converted - Paul wrote his account at least a decade or more after the alleged death of Jesus and implies the appearance was in the form of a vision. The suggestion that Jesus appeared in physical form to Paul requires ad-hoc assumptions and speculation. Either way, Paul needed only to believe his experience was genuine in order to be persuaded to convert over to Christianity. His previous position as a Pharisee has no bearing on the plausibility of his conversion. Modern scholarship has shown the Pharisees were held in high repute throughout the Roman empire as a dedicated group who upheld religious ideals in the face of tyranny, supported leniency and mercy in the application of laws, and championed the rights of the poor against the oppression of the rich. The undeserved reputation which was attached to the label “Pharisee� during medieval times is due to the campaign against Pharisees in the Gospels which weren’t written until after Paul’s ministry had ended. Paul regularly announced his Pharisee background, not for the purpose of demonstrating his conversion would have been otherwise unlikely, but to convince his audience he possessed the necessary training to interpret the Torah and show the Jesus from his visions was the true messiah.

James, the “brother� of Jesus was converted – An argument similar to what was previously used to evaluate Paul’s conversion can be used here except we do not have anything written by James. This information is second hand. That is reason enough to dismiss it.

The tomb was empty – Despite the fraudulent tourist destination in Israel, there is no archaeological evidence for the empty tomb of Jesus. This story is only found in the gospels. The unreliability of those manuscripts has been previously discussed. Although a lot of speculation exists, there seems to be no way of verifying the claim’s plausibility much less calling it a historical fact. Side Note: Technically, the phrase “empty tomb� is misleading because, depending on which of the gospel accounts is used, one or more individuals is described as having been observed in or near the tomb (perceived as either human or angelic figures). No justification is given for how we can trust the testimonies of those mysterious individuals.

Based on this analysis, there appears to be a sufficient justification for concluding these "facts" are not really facts at all and do not function as good reasons to accept the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event. However, I'm open to considering any objections offered by theists. Thank you.

[Zzyzx]

.

Yes, Liam has frequently claimed certainty about Jesus, but uncertainty about Caesar.

When challenged to show Christian claims and stories are true --
1) "You can't show that Caesar stories are true"
2) "No one can prove stories from ancient history are true"
3) "Therefore, don't expect proof of my stories"
4) "BUT stories about Jesus and God are TRUE"
5) "I know they are"
6) "Take my word for it (or read the Bible over and over until your mind is dead)"

[Difflugia]

As far as im concerned, it is undeniable that the first Apostles, Peter, Paul, John, James, Luke, Mark, they all knew each other... Like for instance, Paul writes about knowing Mark and Luke...

Paul's mention of them is why Mark and Luke were identified as two of the evangelists in the first place. To claim, then, that Paul knew the evangelists because he named them is a circular argument. That Paul knew Mark and Luke is established, at least to the extent that we can establish that Paul wrote Philemon (probably), Colossians (maybe), or 2 Timothy (hahahaha!), but that these two are also the evangelists has decidedly not been established.

John the Evangelist, John the author of the epistles, and John the Revelator are likely at least three different people, even if they were all named John. John the Apostle and Paul's "so-called pillar" John might be the same person, but if so, he still isn't necessarily any of the other three.

Im not really sure about the nature of the resurrection... Whether a vision or physical the scripture isn't to defiant about it... Paul however, wrote that Jesus resurrection literally happened in 1 Corinthians 15, Thomas was written touching, people ate with Him...

Paul wrote of the resurrection in a way that seems (to me, anyway) incompatible with the account of Thomas in John's Gospel. 1 Corinthians 15:35-49 would indicate that the body into which one is raised from death is "imperishable," "heavenly," and not "of dust." It was a different kind of body. The accounts of Jesus eating fish and Thomas touching the scars were to show that the raised Jesus was an earthly being, raised in the same body that He died in.

If your case is that everyone is hallucinating this, that isn't a good case... This is a pre-destined event, of prophecy... Saying it is a nothing more then some random mass hallucination, is absurd... What would be the better explanation of the evidence? I think the one given is.

Counterpoint: Our Lady of Fatima

...1 Peter (believed to be written by Peter, a companion of Christ while he was alive)

Not by most scholars, it's not.

what about the book of James?

From the earliest discussions of the letter in the third century, Christian tradition has held that the name “James� in the opening refers to a brother of Jesus (Mt 13.55; Mk 6.3; Gal 1.19) who was an early leader of the Jerusalem church (Gal 2.9) and according to Acts (see 15.13–21) played a decisive role in an apostolic directive stipulating what aspects of Torah observance should be required of Gentile believers. Some have even seen similarities in language between this letter and the apostolic letter in Acts 15.23–29. Yet scholars from ancient times to the present have questioned whether that James is the actual author. Jerome was aware of assertions the letter “was published under [James's] name by another� (De Vir. Ill.: On Illustrious Men 2). The Greek literary style seems well beyond the capabilities of a Galilean villager. Between those who maintain direct authorship by Jesus's brother and those who think the letter was only attributed to him, some have suggested that after James's martyrdom (ca. 62 ce; Josephus, Ant. 20.200–203) his disciples reworked material originating from him to create the letter we know.

—The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha, Fifth Edition, p. 2165.

Im not sure if you know of Dr. Carrier, or Dr. Price, but the biggest critics of a historical Jesus all confess these things, that Paul existed, and that Paul wrote His Epistles attributed to him..

Robert M. Price doesn't think Paul existed. I don't agree with him, but your assertion is false.

Also, the vast majority of critics only think some of the Pauline Epistles are genuine.

And we even have archaeological evidence supporting Paul.. Like we have archaeological evidence supporting Paul and his trials and the Book of Acts...

I'm not aware of any. Usually Christians that claim such are referring to the books of early 20th century author Sir William Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen and The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. If that's what you mean, I urge you to actually read those books and check for yourself the archaeology he mentions. Even when he's honest (he isn't always), he badly overinterprets the data. He somehow turns three short verses from Acts into a thirteen-page romantic yarn about how a devoted servant, beloved by Peter, became one of Luke's most influential eyewitnesses. Her testimony, Ramsay nonfictionally avers, is the "very best evidence" upon which we may be assured of the veracity of not only Acts, but of all the Gospels.

Ramsay was an apologetic hack.

Well we also have Paul mentioning the Disciples. Paul literally talks about knowing Peter, Paul talks about knowing John and James, Paul mentions Luke and Mark...

It is an open question whether and how much Paul's writings influenced Mark, and thus the other Gospels. Paul's mention of the disciples is only evidence for the veracity of the Gospels if the Gospels are independent of Paul. It's not clear that they are.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 2 by Tart]

As far as [I']m concerned, it is undeniable that the first Apostles, Peter, Paul, John, James, Luke, Mark, they all knew each other... Like for instance, Paul writes about knowing Mark and Luke...

The Books of the Bible were all written at different times,,, how could they have known each other?
Or conversely, how could they be written at different times if they did know each other?
The time frames do not overlap i terms of lifetimes...
Here you go.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Composition

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 1 by bluegreenearth]
The facts listed are indeed as factual as the discipline of history can provide about the remote past. The OP contains several errors, and in general exhibits naivete about historical analysis.

I wasn't attempting to refute the historical analysis. My contention is with the assumption that those "facts" are sufficiently reliable to conclude the resurrection of Jesus is historical.

Jesus Died by Crucifixion: There is zero suggestion in the data that Jesus was not crucified--the burden rests on those who would deny it. That Mark was not written by an eyewitness is irrelevant. Most of our knowledge about the past rests on works written by people who were absent from the events they relate. All evidence points in the direction of JEsus' death by crucifixion: there is no reason to doubt this except for willful, fanatical disbelief; the kind exhibited in the OP.

I accept that all the available information about Jesus exists in texts written by people who were absent from the events they relate. We can only work with the information that is available to us. As such, if the majority of those texts indicate Jesus died by Crucifixion, historians have little recourse but to assume this to be the case. The assumption has an implicit empirical basis and doesn't describe something that is not known to be possible. In other words, we know a person would likely die if crucified, and we know people have been crucified in the past. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to assume Jesus was crucified from a historical perspective. However, the reason for arguing against the consensus opinion was to simply demonstrate where historical "fact" is by no means completely reliable. As previously indicated, my contention is not with the historical analysis but with the assumption that these "facts" are sufficiently reliable to conclude the resurrection of Jesus was also a historical event.

Disciples believed Jesus appeared to them:

One point that is true: belief that something happened does not amount to "it happened". The rest of the points here are either irrelevant or erroneous.

I appreciate you giving credit to where credit was due.

Apostle: comes from the Greek "apostello", which means "sent". Apostles were those commissioned by Jesus to proclaim his resurrection.

In the broader sense, I agree that "apostello" refers to someone who was sent off to deliver a message. Whether the source of the message delivered by the Apostles was Jesus in his bodily form, a vision of Jesus experienced by a few or all of the Apostles, or another indeterminable source is beyond any argument's ability to confidently demonstrate.

Resurrection: in all Jewish literature, "resurrection" is a bodily occurrence. The burden of proof rests on those who would contest this. This is a matter of Greek language. Greek has other words for "visions"; Jews knew the difference between a vision and a concrete, tangible thing--they opted for language that conveyed the latter.

I don't dispute that Paul believed in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. My contention is with the "appearances" of Jesus experienced by Paul, Peter, and James as described by Paul. Paul equates his experience with Jesus as being of the same type experienced by Peter and James. The Greek verb "ὤφθη" is used by Paul when describing each of these experiences and directly translates as “appeared� in context of the verses in which it is found.

“The choice of this word is significant because it does not necessarily imply the actual appearance of a person, but may only indicate an unusual phenomena…the use of the word ὤφθη in enumerating other visions in the Pauline lists…excludes such details as prolonged conversations, meals and resumption of ordinary life, on which the gospels dwell.� – Charles Guignebert

According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, when "ὤφθη" is used in this type of context, it refers to a non-sensory revelation. In other words, the “appearance� does not occur in conjunction with the sense perception of site. “The dominant thought is that the appearances are revelations, an encounter with the risen Lord who reveals himself…they experienced his presence.� - Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

Given the above analysis, we must consider the possibility that Paul's use of the word "resurrection" only applies to the single theological claim about the "raising up" of Jesus's body to heaven sometime after he was buried (presumably when no one was looking) but before he "appeared" to Peter, James, and himself.

it isn’t justifiable to assume he, Peter, James, and John witnessed anything other than visions.

No argument is given for why the starting point should be "visions". What the traditional interpretation has on its side is: 1) language: the various terms used for what happened to Jesus all convey something that happened to his corpse; 2) historical development--the suggestion that we move from an original report, involving mere visions, and end up with a tradition that suddenly is quite bodily, is implausible. Reasons (Good Reasons!!) need to be supplied for this implausible trajectory. The gospels were written when Christianity was most popular among Gentiles: a demographic least likely to embrace a bodily resurrection, and most likely to accept "visions". I find it far more likely that the first proclamation was of something bodily, and that is why it remain so up until the gospels, than that it started out a mere vision, and as it spread among Gentiles, it suddenly became Jewish (i.e. resurrection in the Jewish sense).

Paul and the other Apostles probably did believe the body of Jesus was raised up to heaven, but interpreting Paul's description of the subsequent Jesus "appearances" as being revelatory spiritual experiences is justifiable and has yet to be disproved.

Your comment about the majority of Gentiles being averse to the concept of a bodily resurrection is misleading. Even though the gospels may have been written at a time when the majority of Gentiles were more inclined to believe the "visions" claim to the "bodily resurrection" claim, Christianity was still not a widely practiced religion. So, the majority of Christians could have been comprised of a minority of Gentiles. Furthermore, even if the Apostles believed Jesus experienced a bodily resurrection, their claims about Jesus "appearing" to them would explain Christianity's appeal to Gentiles who were already familiar and comfortable with vision-based beliefs.

Later, as Paul’s version of the Jesus story began to spread, there is evidence from Paul himself that his work was being embellished and forged. By the time the gospels were being written, there was a cultural movement underway among the neighboring religious cults to transition from spiritually resurrected deities to physically resurrected deities which were also based on the popular dying and rising god motif they shared with Christianity. So, it would not be unexpected if early Christian cults took part in this trend culminating in the gospel versions of the story.

- Paul wrote his account at least a decade or more after the alleged death of Jesus and implies the appearance was in the form of a vision. The suggestion that Jesus appeared in physical form to Paul requires ad-hoc assumptions and speculation.

Again, the OP BEGINS with an assumption. It needs to defend that assumption. I see no implication of this. I look at Galatians and 1 Cor. 15. I research the Greek as it is used by Jews. Resurrection was something that happened to the body: for Jews (excepting perhaps Philo) matter was good, and the god of Israel would redeem it.

Once again, I don't disagree that Paul probably believed Jesus experienced a bodily resurrection. As such, Paul describes a bodily resurrection every time time he mentions the single event when the body of Jesus was raised up to heaven sometime after it was buried. That belief would not preclude Paul from believing a spiritual rendition of a bodily resurrected Jesus appeared to him and the other Apostles.

His previous position as a Pharisee has no bearing on the plausibility of his conversion. Modern scholarship has shown the Pharisees were held in high repute throughout the Roman empire as a dedicated group who upheld religious ideals in the face of tyranny, supported leniency and mercy in the application of laws, and championed the rights of the poor against the oppression of the rich. The undeserved reputation which was attached to the label “Pharisee� during medieval times is due to the campaign against Pharisees in the Gospels which weren’t written until after Paul’s ministry had ended. Paul regularly announced his Pharisee background, not for the purpose of demonstrating his conversion would have been otherwise unlikely, but to convince his audience he possessed the necessary training to interpret the Torah and show the Jesus from his visions was the true messiah.

This is mostly true, and certainly important for (especially) Protestant scholarship. Many Christian scholars are rectifying the error.

Thanks again for giving me credit where credit was due.

James, the “brother� of Jesus was converted – An argument similar to what was previously used to evaluate Paul’s conversion can be used here except we do not have anything written by James. This information is second hand. That is reason enough to dismiss it.

This only betrays the naivete of historical methodology. How much of ancient Greece or Rome do people really think rests on autobiography!? The fact remains that we have letters, bios, and Josephus, and all claim that James was the brother of Jesus! What the OP does not address is how a James is unanimously and precisely linked with Jesus. If it were a fiction, should we not expect some discrepancies?

It is irrelevant if James converted to Christianity for the same reason as Paul because it doesn't demonstrate a historical resurrection occurred. The second hand nature of the claim just lends a supplementary justification for questioning the reliability of this claim.

Tomb Empty:

Despite the fraudulent tourist destination in Israel, there is no archaeological evidence for the empty tomb of Jesus.

I am not sure what this means. There are no empty tombs near Jerusalem? I shouldn't be surprised: tombs were not intended to house one corpse.

It means, while it might be considered a historical "fact" that someone claimed the body of Jesus was not in the tomb, the "empty tomb" claim itself is unreliable.

The unreliability of those manuscripts has been previously discussed.

Rather, it has been assumed; there is more agreement among the gospels than disagreement; no attempt is made in the OP to demonstrate how we get to the tradition of an empty tomb. Nor are we told why a fiction should have women be the first discoverers of the tomb, when the earliest tradition (Paul) only mentions men.

I'm not aware that Paul mentions a tomb or that men found it empty. It is true that women were not permitted to serve as legal witnesses during this time, with the exception being circumstances where no male witnesses were available to testify. It is also true that the gospels indicate women were the first to discover the empty tomb. On the face of it, the argument suggesting a fictional account of the empty tomb would not likely credit women as being the first to discover it seems reasonable. However, we must remember that the earliest and best manuscripts of the earliest gospel, Mark, ended immediately after the women ran away scared from the empty tomb and never said anything to anyone. Since the anonymous author of Mark was writing his version of the account decades after the resurrection of Jesus is supposed to have occurred, the abrupt ending of his story featuring the frightened women could be justifiably interpreted as an attempt to fabricate a plausible excuse for why no one had previously heard anything about an empty until the detail was divinely revealed for the author of Mark to document.

Based on this analysis, there appears to be a sufficient justification for concluding these "facts" are not really facts at all

Based on analysis, the OP does not display an historical methodology that would be accepted in any historical department. It begins with an assumption, an assumption that ignores ancient linguistics, ancient culture, and basic historical criteria.

As previously explained, my contention is not with the historical methodology but with the assumption that those historical "facts" are sufficiently reliable to conclude the resurrection of Jesus was a historically verifiable event.

[FWI]

First of all, the manner in which Jesus died is irrelevant to the resurrection claim.

Then, why did you bring it up?

Yet, one of the reasons that the crucifixion was relevant is related to a curse. So, by having Jesus crucified, the religious leaders thought that this would end any talk about him being the Messiah. Since, the Messiah certainly would not have been cursed. Another reason may have been the way the Romans used crucifixion. A Roman citizen was never crucified, they were put to death by beheading. Only slaves, political rebels, and the lowest criminals were put to death by crucifixion. The crucifixion was a symbol of shame, which seemed to be the purpose of the religious and governmental authorities, at the time. As well as, a way to put fear into the followers of the Christ, which it's clear didn't work!

The Disciples believed Jesus appeared to them – This is not equivalent to stating “Jesus definitely appeared to the Disciples.�

This is surely splitting hairs…All four gospels and even Acts, clearly reference that the Christ appeared too many of his disciples.

Paul was a persecutor of Christians but suddenly converted - Paul wrote his account at least a decade or more after the alleged death of Jesus and implies the appearance was in the form of a vision. The suggestion that Jesus appeared in physical form to Paul requires ad-hoc assumptions and speculation. Either way, Paul needed only to believe his experience was genuine in order to be persuaded to convert over to Christianity.

Firstly, there is no suggestion that the Christ appeared to Paul physically. There was a light, which Paul seen that seemed to blind him, which his companions didn't see…But, Paul and those with him heard a voice. The related dialog can be read in Acts 9:1-7. So, the records clearly show that it was not only Paul who heard the voice of the Christ, but his servants also. Yet, Paul being blinded and then receiving his sight again (a few days later) is a no-brainer for why he converted, besides the fact that he was chosen. And, I purpose that if this would have happen to others, then conversion would probably follow, as well…

James, the “brother� of Jesus was converted – An argument similar to what was previously used to evaluate Paul’s conversion can be used here except we do not have anything written by James. This information is second hand. That is reason enough to dismiss it.

Well, unless you take into account the embarrassment and guilt that James must have felt, which also affected Paul. A general rule is: "Don't throw gasoline onto a fire to put it out." Hence, it makes no sense "at all" that a non-believer would take a route to martyrdom, unless something spectacular occurred in their life…However, the second hand accounting of James' deeds and status is quite appropriate and relates to a humble individual!

The tomb was empty – Despite the fraudulent tourist destination in Israel, there is no archaeological evidence for the empty tomb of Jesus. This story is only found in the gospels.

A method commonly used today to determine the historicity of an event is "inference to the best explanation." Scholar William Lane Craig describes this as an approach where we "begin with the evidence available to us and then infer what would, if true, provide the best explanation of that evidence." In other words, we ought to accept an event as historical if it gives the best explanation for the evidence surrounding it. When we look at the evidence, the truth of the resurrection emerges very clearly as the best explanation. There is no other theory that even comes close to accounting for the evidence. Therefore, there is solid historical grounds for the truth that Jesus the Christ rose from the dead. Where, the evidence comes from your own words: the gospels and from several non-biblical sources…However, we can also review the various other resurrections in 1&2 Kings, Acts and 1 Cor. for additional support. Where, just saying that you don't believe in the resurrections, isn't good enough!

So, based on this rebuttal, there appears to be sufficient justification for concluding that these "realities" (resurrections) are really facts. Which, seems reasonable to accept that: the resurrection of Jesus the Christ is a historical event.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 15 by FWI]

The responses I provided in the following post will hopefully be sufficient to satisfy your objections:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 614#981614

[FWI]

[Replying to post 16 by bluegreenearth]

The responses I provided in the following post (14) will hopefully be sufficient to satisfy your objections:

Sorry, but my comments were a rebuttal to your stated point of view. Thus, there is no satisfaction sought…Yet, I could reconsider, if you decide to retract the following remarks:

Based on this analysis, there appears to be a sufficient justification for concluding these "facts" are not really facts at all and do not function as good reasons to accept the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event (post 1).

As previously explained, my contention is not with the historical methodology but with the assumption that those historical "facts" are sufficiently reliable to conclude the resurrection of Jesus was a historically verifiable event (post 14).

Therefore, to disprove an accepted historically recorded event requires more than opinions…It would require the same adherence to the rules that the disbelieving demands of others!

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 16 by bluegreenearth]

The responses I provided in the following post (14) will hopefully be sufficient to satisfy your objections:

Sorry, but my comments were a rebuttal to your stated point of view. Thus, there is no satisfaction sought…Yet, I could reconsider, if you decide to retract the following remarks:

Based on this analysis, there appears to be a sufficient justification for concluding these "facts" are not really facts at all and do not function as good reasons to accept the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event (post 1).

As previously explained, my contention is not with the historical methodology but with the assumption that those historical "facts" are sufficiently reliable to conclude the resurrection of Jesus was a historically verifiable event (post 14).

Therefore, to disprove an accepted historically recorded event requires more than opinions…It would require the same adherence to the rules that the disbelieving demands of others!

While it is an accepted historical fact that claims of a resurrection were recorded, the resurrection event itself is not considered to be accepted historical fact but is inferred by Christians to be historical from the minimal historical facts described in the OP. I am not arguing that the minimal historical facts weren't derived through the standard methods of historiography. The problem is that the inherent limitations to historians' methods preclude them from concluding the resurrection was as historical as the minimal historical facts.