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.

[Tart]

Ok first im going to comment on the original post. Then I will get to the topic which me and you discussed, that is 'what do I have confirmation biases about?'

If you have an problem with anything im saying, if you think im asserting things without evidence, let me know and ill go further in discussion about the issue raised.

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.

1) On the matter that Christ died on a Cross, it is very relevant to the idea that Christ came and fulfilled a pre-destined plan that God created, in which case would be relevant evidence for the power of God to will destiny, and the resurrection.

2) the resurrection is mentioned all over the New Testament, including in the Gospels like you say, but also in the Epistles.. In fact, I don't think you are right, one of the earliest mentions of it was in 1 Corinthians 15, which Paul wrote in coordination with the witnesses, scholars believe this was written before Mark was...

3) You say Paul didn't specify how Jesus died, he did. Paul mentioned the cross on multiple occasions... which includes this quote:

"Philippians 2:8
8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."

Also, you are suggesting that the Gospels have not been proven to have been written by an eye witness, and are questioning the validity of its historical value, in which case id like you to read the case I laid out for the history of Jesus and Christianity (it is the last quote below, that is my argument from another topic, copied and paste)...

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...

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.

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...

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.

For instance, this is in 1 Peter (believed to be written by Peter, a companion of Christ while he was alive)

1 Peter 1:21
who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

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.

what about the book of James?

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.

Here is a quote I wrote in another thread, about the historical Jesus

Lets start with what everyone agrees on.. As far as we know, everyone agrees to certain things, like Paul existing, and Paul writing much of the New testament, with his ltters (Epistles)... 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.. And we even have archaeological evidence supporting Paul.. Like we have archaeological evidence supporting Paul and his trials and the Book of Acts... Everyone agrees... (also as far as iv seen, the biggest critics dont even contest suggesting Paul having ill intentions, or alternative motives, we have much evidence supporting that Paul having genuine beliefs)

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... We also have letters who name James, John, Peter as authors.. The evidence supports these people really existed... And these people are the same as the people in the Book of Acts, and consequently the Gospels... Like for example, when Paul mentions Peter, he says:

"I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised." (Galatians 2:7)

It is clear Paul is talking about the same Peter in the Book of Acts, and consequently the same Peter in the Gospels... Likewise the same Peter who is attributed to writing His own epistles which as included in the scripture, that says he literally knew Jesus...

So we have evidence supporting the existence of the same people who walked with, talked with, and literally knew Jesus, and wrote letters testifying so... We also have evidence in these letters that mention Jesus, that mention his crucifixion (from multitudes of sources, biblical and non-biblical ), they mention his trial by Pontius Pilate (both biblical and non-biblical sources), they is mentions of other Gospel events, like the transfiguration, the resurrection (biblical and non-biblical), the family of Jesus, his brother James (both biblical and non-biblical sources).

Then we can get into the Gospels, and the Book of Act's themselves... What we know about these books is that they are riddled with verifiable historical evidence... As far as we know, all the people are historical in these books. We have Emperors, Governess, Head priest, Jewish Leaders, Kings that are all verified as historical people. Like, Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Herod tetrarch, Herod the Great, Lysanias, the High Priests Annas and Caiaphas, Nicodemus, etc... All these men are in the Gospels, and many of them are being said to have physically been in the presence of Jesus, and talking with Jesus.. Likewise we have mentions of historical groups of people, the Pharisees, the Sadducee, the Samaritans, who are dipicted as having actually been in the presence with, and had talked to Jesus himself.. We have no evidence of any of these people or groups of people, having objections to those claims. Also the historically supported Disciples (i mentioned above), Peter, John, James the brother of Jesus, are all in the Gospels... Everything we can verify is historical... All the places mentioned in the Gospels are real places, and many of the events in the Gospels has other supporting evidence as well. Like the ruling of these emperors, and kings, Jewish leader and head priest. The crucifixion of Jesus is talked in tons of sources, both biblical and non biblical, as well as the resurrection and trial of Jesus (both biblical and non-biblical sources)..

I mean, how would we even begin to dissociate Jesus from the magnitude of evidence, and make sense he is fictional? I mean, what other fictional stories, if any, has this kind of evidence in them, but turns out is based on fiction?

And then we go into the Book of Acts, which is the story of the first disciples, after deaths death/resurrection of Christ, and the first churches. We have archaeological evidence that supports some of the trials the first disciples were in. Likewise the people like, Paul, Peter, John, James, Stephan, all mentioned in the Book of Acts, and also having etra-biblical sources mentioning the death of many of these men, the martyrdom... And the church then continued to spread, from the first century onward, to real histocial people who knew the first Disciples, who knew Jesus... Polycarp of Smyrna, Justin Martyr, Scillitan Martyrs, Perpetua and Felicity, Ptolemaeus and Lucius, Pothinus, bishop of Lyon, Pope Fabian, Saint Sebastian, etc... All of which are support to having existed historically and knowing the first Disciples.

I mean, how would we even begin to make sense out of Christianity being mythological? There are mountains of evidence in favor of Christianity, with its historicity....

A question I ask people is to compare Jesus Christ to any fictional person, given the statement above... No one has provided a single fictional character that can be compared to the historical evidence mentioned above. Can you give any fictional character that has a comparable amount of historical evidence of Christ?

See the evidence for the resurrection isn't the only piece of evidence for the divinity of Christ, as Messiah.

The funny thing is that when Jesus was put to death, there wasn't a single person who believed in Him. Even Peter (Jesus's boldest follower) was said to have fallen away and denying Christ, and for good reason! Think about it. A Messiah coming and dying, that doesn't make any sense! The Messiah was suppose to be a ruler of the Jewish people, they thought he'd come and conquer the world. Jesus came and died.. There is absolutely no reason to believe in Jesus when he was on the Cross...

The Disciples later gained such strong beliefs that they died for those beliefs. And we aren't talking about them going on and doing suicide bombings, we are talking about people who have such strong beliefs that they would not recant them and were tortured to death for it. The resurrection is a strong belief of the early disciples, all of them, talked about on multiple occasions. There is no reason to even believe in Christ with no resurrection.. Im convinced the faith would have died with him on the cross.


The best explanation, in the fullness of all the evidence, coherently, is the one given...


What is your explanation that can piece together all the evidence, coherently, and give a sufficient explanation for the evidence?

[Tart]

just so you know, I only have an hour or 2 here at the library, then im going back to hike my last 650 miles of the Pacific Crest Trail, so I will not be responding after I leave, for a while.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 2 by Tart]

I apologize in advance, but my very brief response is probably going to frustrate you because it is obvious that a lot of thought went into your post. Although there was a variety of content in there, I can justifiably dismiss all of it for one valid reason:

None of the existing objections to the claims you've cited in support of your position have been refuted. Until those objections have been resolved, we cannot responsibly refer to those claims as if they were uncontested. This was the reason for excluding them in the original analysis. We are best served by only utilizing the least objectionable information in support of our claims.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 2 by Tart]

I apologize in advance, but my very brief response is probably going to frustrate you because it is obvious that a lot of thought went into your post. Although there was a variety of content in there, I can justifiably dismiss all of it for one valid reason:

None of the existing objections to the claims you've cited in support of your position have been refuted. Until those objections have been resolved, we cannot responsibly refer to those claims as if they were uncontested. This was the reason for excluding them in the original analysis. We are best served by only utilizing the least objectionable information in support of our claims.

I don't know what you are talking about. Can you be specific by commenting on the actual content?

[Willum]

Historians that do agree, agree he was the bastard child of Tiberius Panderia.

That makes the rest of your presumptions meaningless.

[liamconnor]

[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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.


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?

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.

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.

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.

However, it should be said the positive point made about the Pharisees is a welcome corrective to much Protestant scholarship.

[Zzyzx]

.

The facts listed are indeed as factual as the discipline of history can provide about the remote past.

Historians seldom claim certainty about events in the remote past. Agreed?

From https://www.ancient.eu/article/1048/sources-of-history/ "We only get a fragmentary, distorted view; it is like trying to complete a puzzle with a lot of oddly shaped & missing pieces."

Why should Bible tales be considered to represent certain knowledge?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 8 by Zzyzx]

Yes, Liam has frequently claimed certainty about Jesus, but uncertainty about Caesar.
This expands well to others.

Certainty that the mythic exist, but express doubt a common events can occur.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 2 by Tart]

I apologize in advance, but my very brief response is probably going to frustrate you because it is obvious that a lot of thought went into your post. Although there was a variety of content in there, I can justifiably dismiss all of it for one valid reason:

None of the existing objections to the claims you've cited in support of your position have been refuted. Until those objections have been resolved, we cannot responsibly refer to those claims as if they were uncontested. This was the reason for excluding them in the original analysis. We are best served by only utilizing the least objectionable information in support of our claims.

I don't know what you are talking about. Can you be specific by commenting on the actual content?

Since we are likely to revisit the content you've provided in our pending examination for confirmation bias, I'll withhold my objections until then.