Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Cato]

It would be the same as writing a biography of Babe Ruth and only mentioning that he played baseball for the St. Mary's School for Boys while omitting his professional hall of fame career.

Ah, that works for me.

Babe Ruth's professional success WAS the high water mark of his baseball career.

The RESURRECTION was when Jesus defeated death for ALL OF US; it was the "high water mark" of Jesus' incarnation.

You get my point. You're not fooling anyone with this bullshit.

[Randy Carson]

Ah, that works for me.

Babe Ruth's professional success WAS the high water mark of his baseball career.

The RESURRECTION was when Jesus defeated death for ALL OF US; it was the "high water mark" of Jesus' incarnation.

You get my point. You're not fooling anyone with this bullshit.

No. I'm not "fooling" anyone at all. I'm totally serious.

[Redbeard The Pink]

You're kind of assuming that Jesus of Nazareth existed in the first place. You're forgetting that despite many mainstream scholars' insistence that he must have existed (why they insist on this I'm not quite sure), there is legitimately NO reliable, historical evidence that Jesus existed historically. I know this because I've looked for it. Christians try to jump through a bunch of hoops by talking about the "nature of historical evidence" and then going on to extoll the number of manuscripts we have and/or the meticulousness of the copying methods, depending on whether they're talking Old or New Testament, but that's basically a bunch of misleading gibberish.


When it comes down to it, there are only two non-christian texts that christians try to use to argue for the historicity of Jesus: the writings of Josephus and the writings of Tacitus. Tacitus is the later of these two sources, and he briefly mentions a cult who call themselves Christians and serve a crucified savior named Jesus. He does not mention any details other than these, and this information could come from interacting with the cult and/or their writings without their beliefs necessarily having a historical foundation. As for Josephus, historians can't even agree on how much of that wasn't forged, but at least part of it definitely was. Neither of these men were alive when Jesus was supposed to have been, so none of their writings could possibly be first-, second-, or likely even third-hand even if Jesus had existed.


On the other hand, there's a good bit of evidence to support the notion that the Jesus character was originally a purely celestial god-being whose death and resurrection took place in the various heavens and hells. In the earliest redactions of a story called "The Ascension of Isaiah," Jesus descends through various levels of both heaven and hell, disguising himself as denizens of each as he goes. When he gets to the bottom of hell, he is slain by demons while still disguised as one of them and passes back up through the levels to be resurrected, paying off all mankind's sins with celestial trickery. The "gospel" version of the story is a later one and features a human Jesus, though there's some evidence that this story was originally meant as one big parable and the church later decided that they wished to present it as historical.


The really interesting thing is that when you look at the Epistles that aren't forged and throw in Hebrews (which wasn't written by Paul but was likely written by someone who knew him personally and shared his beliefs), it becomes clear that the Paul and the other writers of the first few Epistles were originally referencing this older story of a celestial Jesus who was slain by demons and not men and never appeared on Earth except in visions to humans AFTER his supposed celestial resurrection. In fact, they appear to be completely ignorant of Jesus' human story altogether.


So yeah...before you can even start talking about the historicity of the resurrection, you pretty much have to establish the historicity of Jesus first, and that's not as sure a thing as you might think.

[Randy Carson]

You're kind of assuming that Jesus of Nazareth existed in the first place. You're forgetting that despite many mainstream scholars' insistence that he must have existed (why they insist on this I'm not quite sure), there is legitimately NO reliable, historical evidence that Jesus existed historically. I know this because I've looked for it. Christians try to jump through a bunch of hoops by talking about the "nature of historical evidence" and then going on to extoll the number of manuscripts we have and/or the meticulousness of the copying methods, depending on whether they're talking Old or New Testament, but that's basically a bunch of misleading gibberish.


When it comes down to it, there are only two non-christian texts that christians try to use to argue for the historicity of Jesus: the writings of Josephus and the writings of Tacitus. Tacitus is the later of these two sources, and he briefly mentions a cult who call themselves Christians and serve a crucified savior named Jesus. He does not mention any details other than these, and this information could come from interacting with the cult and/or their writings without their beliefs necessarily having a historical foundation. As for Josephus, historians can't even agree on how much of that wasn't forged, but at least part of it definitely was. Neither of these men were alive when Jesus was supposed to have been, so none of their writings could possibly be first-, second-, or likely even third-hand even if Jesus had existed.


On the other hand, there's a good bit of evidence to support the notion that the Jesus character was originally a purely celestial god-being whose death and resurrection took place in the various heavens and hells. In the earliest redactions of a story called "The Ascension of Isaiah," Jesus descends through various levels of both heaven and hell, disguising himself as denizens of each as he goes. When he gets to the bottom of hell, he is slain by demons while still disguised as one of them and passes back up through the levels to be resurrected, paying off all mankind's sins with celestial trickery. The "gospel" version of the story is a later one and features a human Jesus, though there's some evidence that this story was originally meant as one big parable and the church later decided that they wished to present it as historical.


The really interesting thing is that when you look at the Epistles that aren't forged and throw in Hebrews (which wasn't written by Paul but was likely written by someone who knew him personally and shared his beliefs), it becomes clear that the Paul and the other writers of the first few Epistles were originally referencing this older story of a celestial Jesus who was slain by demons and not men and never appeared on Earth except in visions to humans AFTER his supposed celestial resurrection. In fact, they appear to be completely ignorant of Jesus' human story altogether.


So yeah...before you can even start talking about the historicity of the resurrection, you pretty much have to establish the historicity of Jesus first, and that's not as sure a thing as you might think.

Tim O'Neill is an atheist, an occasional member of this forum, and a knowledgeable historian. He addresses the Jesus Myth here:

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist...rt-1-of-2/
http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist...rt-2-of-2/

[rexbeccarox]

---

You're kind of assuming that Jesus of Nazareth existed in the first place. You're forgetting that despite many mainstream scholars' insistence that he must have existed (why they insist on this I'm not quite sure), there is legitimately NO reliable, historical evidence that Jesus existed historically. I know this because I've looked for it. Christians try to jump through a bunch of hoops by talking about the "nature of historical evidence" and then going on to extoll the number of manuscripts we have and/or the meticulousness of the copying methods, depending on whether they're talking Old or New Testament, but that's basically a bunch of misleading gibberish.


When it comes down to it, there are only two non-christian texts that christians try to use to argue for the historicity of Jesus: the writings of Josephus and the writings of Tacitus. Tacitus is the later of these two sources, and he briefly mentions a cult who call themselves Christians and serve a crucified savior named Jesus. He does not mention any details other than these, and this information could come from interacting with the cult and/or their writings without their beliefs necessarily having a historical foundation. As for Josephus, historians can't even agree on how much of that wasn't forged, but at least part of it definitely was. Neither of these men were alive when Jesus was supposed to have been, so none of their writings could possibly be first-, second-, or likely even third-hand even if Jesus had existed.


On the other hand, there's a good bit of evidence to support the notion that the Jesus character was originally a purely celestial god-being whose death and resurrection took place in the various heavens and hells. In the earliest redactions of a story called "The Ascension of Isaiah," Jesus descends through various levels of both heaven and hell, disguising himself as denizens of each as he goes. When he gets to the bottom of hell, he is slain by demons while still disguised as one of them and passes back up through the levels to be resurrected, paying off all mankind's sins with celestial trickery. The "gospel" version of the story is a later one and features a human Jesus, though there's some evidence that this story was originally meant as one big parable and the church later decided that they wished to present it as historical.


The really interesting thing is that when you look at the Epistles that aren't forged and throw in Hebrews (which wasn't written by Paul but was likely written by someone who knew him personally and shared his beliefs), it becomes clear that the Paul and the other writers of the first few Epistles were originally referencing this older story of a celestial Jesus who was slain by demons and not men and never appeared on Earth except in visions to humans AFTER his supposed celestial resurrection. In fact, they appear to be completely ignorant of Jesus' human story altogether.


So yeah...before you can even start talking about the historicity of the resurrection, you pretty much have to establish the historicity of Jesus first, and that's not as sure a thing as you might think.

---

Tim O'Neill is an atheist, an occasional member of this forum, and a knowledgeable historian. He addresses the Jesus Myth here:

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist...rt-1-of-2/
http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist...rt-2-of-2/

You know this one, Randy; we've been over it WAY too many times. Please add your own commentary, and please don't make me post in green.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Tim O'Neill is an atheist, an occasional member of this forum, and a knowledgeable historian. He addresses the Jesus Myth here:

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist...rt-1-of-2/
http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist...rt-2-of-2/

Up-front warning: long post coming, gonna be all pink 'cause fuck it.


Ok, I've checked those links out, and while he does have a strong grasp of the mainstream opinion of the Christ Myth theory, he's not necessarily right about all of what he's saying. For one thing, he mentions the town of Nazareth, but here's another fun fact for you: the town of Nazareth also has little to no established historicity. The place Jesus is supposed to have grown up might not have existed either. There's a site out in that desert somewhere that people are claiming was Nazareth, but no archaeological evidence to this effect has actually been confirmed; wild claims have been made, of course, but all evidence has failed once examined by unbiased scholars. As far as we can tell, there is no evidence of a town named Nazareth during the time Jesus was supposed to have lived there.


It's certainly true that most mainstream historians believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed in one form or another (even though he has virtually no historicity and neither does his home-town). It's also true that in many cases, the consensus of experts is an excellent indicator of objective reality. The tricky thing about consensus, though, is that it's not a universal indicator of truth, no matter how widespread a particular consensus may be. History is rife with examples of times when pretty much everyone turned out to be wrong except for, like, one guy. If something is true, it's true even if only one person thinks it, or if no one thinks it. Many experts are good at pointing out problems with arguments for the Christ Myth theory, but the arguments for historicity are equally terrible, if not worse, because they are based on little to no evidence outside of christian scripture and sub-scripture itself.


Many branches of the Christ Myth theory forward dubious historical claims and conspiracy-theory gymnastics, and O'Neil does a decent job dismissing those. There are some issues with a few of his arguments, though. For one thing, whether he likes it or not, only 7 of the Epistles are 100% legit, and those Epistles really don't have definite references to an earthly Jesus. The term "born of a woman" really translates more accurately as "made of a woman"; likewise, the same word is used in the passage, "made of the sperm of David." The word most commonly used for "born" was something else entirely. There is mention of "brothers of the Lord," but even in modern times this is used as a way to describe christians and it has been since the early church. Even the human version of Jesus described his followers as his brothers.


Furthermore, if you look at First Corinthians, you get a passage that supports the "celestial Jesus slain by sky demons" story. Paul at one point writes that those who seized Jesus wouldn't have slain him if they knew it would provide salvation for the human world. Now...the Romans and the Jews were both tribes of humans. If they had known for certain that killing Jesus would save all humans from hell, they absolutely still would have killed him, and happily. Any group of humans would. Especially if he were willing. A bunch of demons who were enemies of man, on the other hand, wouldn't necessarily be as motivated, hence the version of the story where he disguises himself as a demon so they will attack and slay him, essentially tricking them into carrying out his father's plan. Based on the biblical text itself, this narrative actually makes more cohesive sense.



Now, lots of people will point out that there are other historical figures that we have no problem believing existed who have as little or worse verifiable historicity. The problem is that Jesus is not a typical historical figure; the claims about him are completely wild and extraordinary in the context of both science and history, and he went on to be worshipped as the human embodiment of the creator god. He is by nature an extraordinary figure, and so even the question of his earthly existence should be the subject of very high standards of scrutiny and evidence.


I could probably go on a lot longer, but if you want some more detail and depth on some of the arguments I'm offering, check out a video called "Why I Think Jesus Didn't Exist: A Historian Explains The Evidence That Changed His Mind." I'm new, so I won't link directly to it, but if you search for that title on Youtube it should pop right up. The video is a lecture by Dr. Richard Carrier, and he's done extensive work and research into this exact thing to strip away the dubious claims and conspiracy theory bullshit from the Christ Myth theory. Aside from backing up what he says with scripture, he also fits it into the historical context of the Hellenistic Mystery Cults that were developing around the time the Jesus story showed up.


Even if you don't want to get into the issue of whether he existed, your'e still basically fucked in terms of evidence as far as the crucifixion goes. In the context of science, it is extraordinary to claim that a human being rose from the grave after 3 days of being biologically dead. This is not an ordinary claim about history, so you can't justify it with ordinary historical evidence. The problem with christian thinking is that you've been conditioned to believe that the claims forwarded by your bible are as normal, reasonable, and valid as any basic historical or scientific claim, but in truth the claims of the bible are wild and fantastical to others just as the claims of other religions are probably wild and fantastical to you, and as such they should require the highest level of evidence; instead people believe that shit on "faith."

[Randy Carson]

Tim O'Neill is an atheist, an occasional member of this forum, and a knowledgeable historian. He addresses the Jesus Myth here:

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist...rt-1-of-2/
http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist...rt-2-of-2/

Up-front warning: long post coming, gonna be all pink 'cause fuck it.


Ok, I've checked those links out, and while he does have a strong grasp of the mainstream opinion of the Christ Myth theory, he's not necessarily right about all of what he's saying. For one thing, he mentions the town of Nazareth, but here's another fun fact for you: the town of Nazareth also has little to no established historicity. The place Jesus is supposed to have grown up might not have existed either. There's a site out in that desert somewhere that people are claiming was Nazareth, but no archaeological evidence to this effect has actually been confirmed; wild claims have been made, of course, but all evidence has failed once examined by unbiased scholars. As far as we can tell, there is no evidence of a town named Nazareth during the time Jesus was supposed to have lived there.


It's certainly true that most mainstream historians believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed in one form or another (even though he has virtually no historicity and neither does his home-town). It's also true that in many cases, the consensus of experts is an excellent indicator of objective reality. The tricky thing about consensus, though, is that it's not a universal indicator of truth, no matter how widespread a particular consensus may be. History is rife with examples of times when pretty much everyone turned out to be wrong except for, like, one guy. If something is true, it's true even if only one person thinks it, or if no one thinks it. Many experts are good at pointing out problems with arguments for the Christ Myth theory, but the arguments for historicity are equally terrible, if not worse, because they are based on little to no evidence outside of christian scripture and sub-scripture itself.


Many branches of the Christ Myth theory forward dubious historical claims and conspiracy-theory gymnastics, and O'Neil does a decent job dismissing those. There are some issues with a few of his arguments, though. For one thing, whether he likes it or not, only 7 of the Epistles are 100% legit, and those Epistles really don't have definite references to an earthly Jesus. The term "born of a woman" really translates more accurately as "made of a woman"; likewise, the same word is used in the passage, "made of the sperm of David." The word most commonly used for "born" was something else entirely. There is mention of "brothers of the Lord," but even in modern times this is used as a way to describe christians and it has been since the early church. Even the human version of Jesus described his followers as his brothers.


Furthermore, if you look at First Corinthians, you get a passage that supports the "celestial Jesus slain by sky demons" story. Paul at one point writes that those who seized Jesus wouldn't have slain him if they knew it would provide salvation for the human world. Now...the Romans and the Jews were both tribes of humans. If they had known for certain that killing Jesus would save all humans from hell, they absolutely still would have killed him, and happily. Any group of humans would. Especially if he were willing. A bunch of demons who were enemies of man, on the other hand, wouldn't necessarily be as motivated, hence the version of the story where he disguises himself as a demon so they will attack and slay him, essentially tricking them into carrying out his father's plan. Based on the biblical text itself, this narrative actually makes more cohesive sense.



Now, lots of people will point out that there are other historical figures that we have no problem believing existed who have as little or worse verifiable historicity. The problem is that Jesus is not a typical historical figure; the claims about him are completely wild and extraordinary in the context of both science and history, and he went on to be worshipped as the human embodiment of the creator god. He is by nature an extraordinary figure, and so even the question of his earthly existence should be the subject of very high standards of scrutiny and evidence.


I could probably go on a lot longer, but if you want some more detail and depth on some of the arguments I'm offering, check out a video called "Why I Think Jesus Didn't Exist: A Historian Explains The Evidence That Changed His Mind." I'm new, so I won't link directly to it, but if you search for that title on Youtube it should pop right up. The video is a lecture by Dr. Richard Carrier, and he's done extensive work and research into this exact thing to strip away the dubious claims and conspiracy theory bullshit from the Christ Myth theory. Aside from backing up what he says with scripture, he also fits it into the historical context of the Hellenistic Mystery Cults that were developing around the time the Jesus story showed up.


Even if you don't want to get into the issue of whether he existed, your'e still basically fucked in terms of evidence as far as the crucifixion goes. In the context of science, it is extraordinary to claim that a human being rose from the grave after 3 days of being biologically dead. This is not an ordinary claim about history, so you can't justify it with ordinary historical evidence. The problem with christian thinking is that you've been conditioned to believe that the claims forwarded by your bible are as normal, reasonable, and valid as any basic historical or scientific claim, but in truth the claims of the bible are wild and fantastical to others just as the claims of other religions are probably wild and fantastical to you, and as such they should require the highest level of evidence; instead people believe that shit on "faith."

See folks? This is what a reasonable discussion looks like!

[Cato]

You get my point. You're not fooling anyone with this bullshit.

No. I'm not "fooling" anyone at all. I'm totally serious.

Taking bullshit seriously is your fucking problem.

[Randy Carson]

Tim O'Neill is an atheist, an occasional member of this forum, and a knowledgeable historian. He addresses the Jesus Myth here:

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist...rt-1-of-2/
http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist...rt-2-of-2/

Up-front warning: long post coming, gonna be all pink 'cause fuck it.


Ok, I've checked those links out, and while he does have a strong grasp of the mainstream opinion of the Christ Myth theory, he's not necessarily right about all of what he's saying. For one thing, he mentions the town of Nazareth, but here's another fun fact for you: the town of Nazareth also has little to no established historicity. The place Jesus is supposed to have grown up might not have existed either. There's a site out in that desert somewhere that people are claiming was Nazareth, but no archaeological evidence to this effect has actually been confirmed; wild claims have been made, of course, but all evidence has failed once examined by unbiased scholars. As far as we can tell, there is no evidence of a town named Nazareth during the time Jesus was supposed to have lived there.

Let's agree for the sake of argument that the town/village of Nazareth has not yet been discovered by archaeologists?

Is that sufficient reason to discount the rest of the New Testament and the extra-biblical data concerning Jesus?

It's certainly true that most mainstream historians believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed in one form or another (even though he has virtually no historicity and neither does his home-town). It's also true that in many cases, the consensus of experts is an excellent indicator of objective reality. The tricky thing about consensus, though, is that it's not a universal indicator of truth, no matter how widespread a particular consensus may be. History is rife with examples of times when pretty much everyone turned out to be wrong except for, like, one guy. If something is true, it's true even if only one person thinks it, or if no one thinks it. Many experts are good at pointing out problems with arguments for the Christ Myth theory, but the arguments for historicity are equally terrible, if not worse, because they are based on little to no evidence outside of christian scripture and sub-scripture itself.

Fair enough. I agree with many of the points in this paragraph.

However, Jesus was a peasant carpenter from an obscure village in a remote corner of the Roman Empire under occupation. How much information about him should we reasonably expect from contemporaneous sources? And yet, we have some, don't we?

Many branches of the Christ Myth theory forward dubious historical claims and conspiracy-theory gymnastics, and O'Neil does a decent job dismissing those. There are some issues with a few of his arguments, though. For one thing, whether he likes it or not, only 7 of the Epistles are 100% legit, and those Epistles really don't have definite references to an earthly Jesus. The term "born of a woman" really translates more accurately as "made of a woman"; likewise, the same word is used in the passage, "made of the sperm of David." The word most commonly used for "born" was something else entirely. There is mention of "brothers of the Lord," but even in modern times this is used as a way to describe christians and it has been since the early church. Even the human version of Jesus described his followers as his brothers.

Aramaic has no word for "cousin". Mary remained ever-virgin; consequently, Jesus' "brothers" were actually kinsmen - not uterine siblings.

Furthermore, if you look at First Corinthians, you get a passage that supports the "celestial Jesus slain by sky demons" story. Paul at one point writes that those who seized Jesus wouldn't have slain him if they knew it would provide salvation for the human world. Now...the Romans and the Jews were both tribes of humans. If they had known for certain that killing Jesus would save all humans from hell, they absolutely still would have killed him, and happily. Any group of humans would. Especially if he were willing. A bunch of demons who were enemies of man, on the other hand, wouldn't necessarily be as motivated, hence the version of the story where he disguises himself as a demon so they will attack and slay him, essentially tricking them into carrying out his father's plan. Based on the biblical text itself, this narrative actually makes more cohesive sense.

Which verse in Corinthians are you thinking of here?

Now, lots of people will point out that there are other historical figures that we have no problem believing existed who have as little or worse verifiable historicity. The problem is that Jesus is not a typical historical figure; the claims about him are completely wild and extraordinary in the context of both science and history, and he went on to be worshipped as the human embodiment of the creator god. He is by nature an extraordinary figure, and so even the question of his earthly existence should be the subject of very high standards of scrutiny and evidence.

Rightfully so. Evidentialist apologists believe that sufficient evidence exists.

I could probably go on a lot longer, but if you want some more detail and depth on some of the arguments I'm offering, check out a video called "Why I Think Jesus Didn't Exist: A Historian Explains The Evidence That Changed His Mind." I'm new, so I won't link directly to it, but if you search for that title on Youtube it should pop right up. The video is a lecture by Dr. Richard Carrier, and he's done extensive work and research into this exact thing to strip away the dubious claims and conspiracy theory bullshit from the Christ Myth theory. Aside from backing up what he says with scripture, he also fits it into the historical context of the Hellenistic Mystery Cults that were developing around the time the Jesus story showed up.

Are you a mythicist like Carrier?

Even if you don't want to get into the issue of whether he existed, your'e still basically fucked in terms of evidence as far as the crucifixion goes. In the context of science, it is extraordinary to claim that a human being rose from the grave after 3 days of being biologically dead. This is not an ordinary claim about history, so you can't justify it with ordinary historical evidence. The problem with christian thinking is that you've been conditioned to believe that the claims forwarded by your bible are as normal, reasonable, and valid as any basic historical or scientific claim, but in truth the claims of the bible are wild and fantastical to others just as the claims of other religions are probably wild and fantastical to you, and as such they should require the highest level of evidence; instead people believe that shit on "faith."

Sure. In terms of science. God created all that science studies, but He Himself is not bound by that. Magic, dude. God has BIG magic.

So, no...the resurrection of Jesus and His other miracles are not "normal"...but they are "reasonable" given who Jesus is.

[Randy Carson]

No. I'm not "fooling" anyone at all. I'm totally serious.

Taking bullshit seriously is your fucking problem.