Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Randy Carson]

I've got an alternative narrative that is much more simple and believable:

Some guy was causing a commotion for the Romans with his preaching and ended up getting executed, possibly crucified. Later on, some people who had never met him made up a load of extra shit about him*.

Fits like a glove.

* (It's easy, try it! Today, I killed 54 people with a spoon, then died, came back to life and ate a planet sized pizza! I can get a bunch of my mates to write it down too, making it 98% more true.)

rob-

Thanks for your imaginative theory. You've obviously put a lot of thought and effort into coming up with something that is so air tight.

Before I buy in completely, however, could you provide some plausible explanation for why the guys who made the whole thing up would be willing to suffer (and possibly die) for something which they knew was just a practical joke?

The three standard motivations that police investigators consider are: money, power, and sex. If you have anything which explains how one or more of these applied to the Apostles, that would be great.

Thanks.

[Randy Carson]

You're right. They don't NORMALLY resurrect. Here's what we know:

Jesus died by crucifixion.
The women who went to the tomb found it empty.
The disciples believed that they saw Jesus alive after the crucifixion and were willing to suffer rather than recant.
Paul, an sworn enemy of the Church, was suddenly converted.
James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddenly converted.

What theory do you have that account for these facts BETTER than the resurrection of Jesus?

I get the feeling you're not listening to me and I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Why are we to hold the explanation that there was a bodily resurrection more likely than other explanations of the gospel writings?

Because the resurrection of Jesus is actually the best of the available explanations. The others fail for various reasons.

The simplest, and most consistent with the facts about dead bodies is that the resurrection narrative is (1) disciples lied and died for it because recanting wasn't a live option for them (ex. the Romans didn't care and would kill them regardless of recanting, and it would be better to die a heroic martyr than as a lying con-man),

Fail #1: The apostles weren't all martyred by Romans. Thomas was martyred in India, but not because the Romans would have killed him "regardless".

(2) outright folklore like urban legends we have today which given that historians don't know who actually wrote the gospel accounts this is very likely.

Wait...I thought the apostles simply made everything up. Now, you're switching to the legend theory. These are two different things. Are you not sure what really happened?

Fail #2: The proto-creed contained in 1 Co. 15 dates to within about five years of the resurrection. Not much time for legend to have sprung up...especially since people who were familiar with the events of Jesus' very public ministry and execution were still alive. Skeptics and believers both, btw.

Fail #3: Yes, we do have a pretty good idea that the gospels were written by the authors whose names they bear. See my "Historical Reliability of the NT" thread for full details.

There, I named two explanations that have the explanatory virtues of simplicity, not ad hoc and consistent with and supported by biology and commonsense folk psychology. My explanations are even consistent with a god existing and natural theology. What do you actually have?

A better explanation.

Oh, and clear reasons why your theories don't hold water.

If you assume Christian views on god and metaphysics you beg the question against me.

How so? In this thread, all I have done is present non-biblical evidence that points to a conclusion.

So, if you want to get me to Christianity you need to back up and defend those claims. We need common ground here and I'm just not seeing it. If it's okay to argue in a circle in the bigger web of arguments then I see no reason why rivals to Christianity like other religions, irreligious theism, and strong atheism can't argue the same way.

They could argue the same way. And we would demand evidence of them just as you are demanding it of me. Problem is, they don't have any.

[downbeatplumb]

I see we have another thread that refuses to die.

[Jenny A]

When you actually demonstrate that the above are facts, it will be a live question. 

Jenny, these are facts that professional NT scholars accept...even those who are skeptics. Now, you can continue to deny them if you like, but these are not the issues that keep the "big boys" up at night. They are accepted as "facts" by the vast majority of NT scholars. In light of that, perhaps YOU might provide some scholarship which shows why we should NOT accept them.

Only two of the items on your list are accepted by the majority of biblical historians:

Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[8][9][10][11] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[12] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[13][14][15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical...he_Gospels

That Paul was first against and then for the Christian movement I'll grant you.

But I will not grant you that Jesus was buried in a tomb.  There is much scholarly disagreement on that point:

N. T. Wright notes that the burial of Christ is part of the earliest gospel traditions.[18] John A.T. Robinson states that the burial of Jesus in the tomb is one of the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus."[19] Rudolf Bultmann described the basic story as 'an historical account which creates no impression of being a legend'.[20]

John Dominic Crossan, however, suggests that Jesus' body was eaten by dogs as it hung on the cross so that there was nothing left to bury.[21] Martin Hengel argued that Jesus was buried in disgrace as an executed criminal who died a shameful death, a view widely accepted in scholarly literature.[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_of_Jesus

It is highly improbable that the Roman's would have allowed the burial of anyone crucified by them.

It would be more likely that one hundred men got together and conspired to make up the resurrection and Paul was one of the conspirators than that there was a resurrection. 

1. Conspiracy Theory.

But there are much better explanations than that beginning with the fact that people do hallucinate and they are more likely to do so under stress.   And there are precedents for mass hallucinations.

2. Hallucination Theory.

And many people really do believe that they were abducted by aliens, saw their dead mother, etc.,  etc.  So Paul and the disciples are easily explained.  They are either liars or mistaken.

Okay. 1 & 2. Both of these theories have solid refutations which I will post later today.

People suddenly adopt all sorts of beliefs including atheism.  James suddenly did.  So?

But why, Jenny? James was a skeptic for three years...Jesus walked on water, healed the sick, raised the dead...allegedly. But none of that moved James to believe that Jesus was anything special. And then something changed. Scripture records that James saw Jesus after the resurrection. Scholars accept that as a known fact.

But you know better. So, what is your explanation for James' conversion?

The empty tomb is laughably easy to explain.  Someone took the body away.  And that is the conclusion that any rational person looking at an empty tomb would reach.

Laughably? We'll see who's laughing once the evidence is examined.

So, who was it, Jenny? Who took the body? You're chuckling, so you must have a theory....

The point is not that anyone can show what happened other than resurrection but rather that there is insufficient evidence that resurrection happened.  All of the things I suggested including the highly unlikely event of a hundred men entering into an elaborate conspiracy are less unlikely than resurrection.  It isn't necessary to prove any of them to demonstrate that the resurrection is more unlikely in this case because all of those things have demonstrably happened somewhere to some one and all are physically possible.   Mass hallucination have happened.  The British managed an enormous conspiracy called Fortitude South during WWII.  I'm sure I can come up with others.   People have stolen bodies both to properly bury them and to dishonor them, and to create the impression that the person is still alive.  

Resurrections have never been demonstrated.  Not once.

[pocaracas]

You're right. They don't NORMALLY resurrect. Here's what we know:

Jesus died by crucifixion.

I can grant that some guy was killed by crucifixion. Some guy that went against the grain of the established powers that be... not necessarily a guy called Jesus, but ok.. let's call him Jesus... Also, not necessarily at the year 1.

The women who went to the tomb found it empty.

You mean that story where it would be highly irregular for women's accounts to be heeded and yet, they were?
After watching the "I, Claudius" BBC tv series recently, women at the time don't seem so feeble as to be dismissed like that, in Rome... perhaps Jerusalem was a bit different... perhaps not...

The disciples believed that they saw Jesus alive after the crucifixion and were willing to suffer rather than recant.

There is a tale of such disciples... There is a tale of people believing that such believing disciples existed. Do note the two-tier nature of the account.

Paul, an sworn enemy of the Church, was suddenly converted.

Well, many people have had such experiences... even this forum's popsthebuilder has gone through something like that.
Doesn't mean it's not in the person's head.

James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddently converted.

Who? Brother of whom?! Don't know his tale.

What theory do you have that account for these facts BETTER than the resurrection of Jesus?

Partly made-up, partly true, partly from old tales, partly drawing from people's previous beliefs...
The usual stuff when discussing any myth... they don't crop up in a vacuum, you know?

[Randy Carson]

Jenny, these are facts that professional NT scholars accept...even those who are skeptics. Now, you can continue to deny them if you like, but these are not the issues that keep the "big boys" up at night. They are accepted as "facts" by the vast majority of NT scholars. In light of that, perhaps YOU might provide some scholarship which shows why we should NOT accept them.

Only two of the items on your list are accepted by the majority of biblical historians:

Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[8][9][10][11] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[12] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[13][14][15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical...he_Gospels

Gary Habermas has done a longitudinal study of hundreds of publications in multiple languages. Yes, the majority of scholars accept the first four of the minimal facts presented in my OP.

That Paul was first against and then for the Christian movement I'll grant you.

And the crucifixion by Pontius Pilate? Do you grant that, also?

But I will not grant you that Jesus was buried in a tomb.  There is much scholarly disagreement on that point:

N. T. Wright notes that the burial of Christ is part of the earliest gospel traditions.[18] John A.T. Robinson states that the burial of Jesus in the tomb is one of the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus."[19] Rudolf Bultmann described the basic story as 'an historical account which creates no impression of being a legend'.[20]

John Dominic Crossan, however, suggests that Jesus' body was eaten by dogs as it hung on the cross so that there was nothing left to bury.[21] Martin Hengel argued that Jesus was buried in disgrace as an executed criminal who died a shameful death, a view widely accepted in scholarly literature.[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_of_Jesus

It is highly improbable that the Roman's would have allowed the burial of anyone crucified by them.

Crossan's theory is what is truly laughable, Jenny. The Jews had very specific laws concerning the ritual uncleanness that resulted from coming into contact with a corpse. The idea that the Jews would allow dogs to roam the streets of the Holy City of Jerusalem potentially defiling everything they came into contact with is absurd. Pilate agreed to allow a senior member of the Sanhedrin to bury Jesus in his personal tomb because Pilate wanted to settle the crowd and avoid any more confrontations with the Jews. He had had enough for one day!

1. Conspiracy Theory.


2. Hallucination Theory.


Okay. 1 & 2. Both of these theories have solid refutations which I will post later today.


But why, Jenny? James was a skeptic for three years...Jesus walked on water, healed the sick, raised the dead...allegedly. But none of that moved James to believe that Jesus was anything special. And then something changed. Scripture records that James saw Jesus after the resurrection. Scholars accept that as a known fact.

But you know better. So, what is your explanation for James' conversion?


Laughably? We'll see who's laughing once the evidence is examined.

So, who was it, Jenny? Who took the body? You're chuckling, so you must have a theory....

The point is not that anyone can show what happened other than resurrection but rather that there is insufficient evidence that resurrection happened.

You mean other than the testimony of the eyewitnesses (you know, the early Church)?

Other than the four written accounts which are included in the Bible?

Other than the testimony of the converted enemy of the Church, Paul?

You have no plausible explanation for these, Jenny...just your desire to ignore them to avoid the implications.

All of the things I suggested including the highly unlikely event of a hundred men entering into an elaborate conspiracy are less unlikely than resurrection.  It isn't necessary to prove any of them to demonstrate that the resurrection is more unlikely in this case because all of those things have demonstrably happened somewhere to some one and all are physically possible.   Mass hallucination have happened.  The British managed an enormous conspiracy called Fortitude South during WWII.  I'm sure I can come up with others.   People have stolen bodies both to properly bury them and to dishonor them, and to create the impression that the person is still alive.  

Resurrections have never been demonstrated.  Not once.

And the resurrection of Jesus may actually be the one example of a supernatural event that you're looking for.

[Longhorn]

Actually, you do. You need to have an explanation that is better than the resurrection; otherwise, the resurrection IS the best explanation of the facts, and knowing this will haunt you because you do not want it to be true.

So, got something?

No, I actually don't.

I don't need a theory for the origins of the universe better than 'magic pink unicorn created it' to reject that theory as implausible.

Lol. As you almost found out, there are many things that haunt me, Randy, but resurrection is not one of them.

I don't know, Randy. I'm not even convinced Jesus existed and died, because I don't have enough information to make a judgement.

But what I do know is that there hasn't been one documented case of a human being coming back to life after being dead for three days.

And based on that information and the unconvincing nature of your evidence, I reject your theory of resurrection.

A ridiculous violation of basic laws of biology is not the best explanation. Ever heard of Occam's razor?

This is just another of your beloved god of the gaps argument. 'You don't have an explanation, therefore he must have risen from the dead'. Nope. Does not work that way.

[KevinM1]

But what I do know is that there hasn't been one documented case of a human being coming back to life after being dead for three days.

And based on that information and the unconvincing nature of your evidence, I reject your theory of resurrection.

A ridiculous violation of basic laws of biology is not the best explanation. Ever heard of Occam's razor?

Randy is simply aping what skeptics do. The problem is that he's placing far more weight on the bible (which is really the claim and not the evidence for it, anyway) than anyone else otherwise would. Our knowledge of biology certainly trumps heresay and myth, even if they're partially based on real events. He thinks that varying degrees of historical evidence for places, people and events = divinity. But that's not how it works. Especially when the part he wants to prove - the resurrection - has the least going for it.

[robvalue]

It's a story!

In a story book. With extremely vague roots in reality.

Anyone who didn't already subscribe to the oral myth that the bible is somehow automatically true would see that.

[Randy Carson]

Actually, you do. You need to have an explanation that is better than the resurrection; otherwise, the resurrection IS the best explanation of the facts, and knowing this will haunt you because you do not want it to be true.

So, got something?

No, I actually don't.

I don't need a theory for the origins of the universe better than 'magic pink unicorn created it' to reject that theory as implausible.

Lol. As you almost found out, there are many things that haunt me, Randy, but resurrection is not one of them.

I don't know, Randy. I'm not even convinced Jesus existed and died, because I don't have enough information to make a judgement.

No, you have enough information. What you lack is the guts to make the decision to accept Jesus.

But what I do know is that there hasn't been one documented case of a human being coming back to life after being dead for three days.

And based on that information and the unconvincing nature of your evidence, I reject your theory of resurrection.

A ridiculous violation of basic laws of biology is not the best explanation. Ever heard of Occam's razor?

This is just another of your beloved god of the gaps argument. 'You don't have an explanation, therefore he must have risen from the dead'. Nope. Does not work that way.

The problem is this: you know there is evidence supporting the resurrection of Jesus Christ. You know that that evidence has been in existence for 2,000 years. You know that there are over 2 billion people in the world today who accept it. And if you stop and think about it, mathematically, the odds are that not all of them are less intelligent than you are.

So, yes, you have to come up with some explanation for the existence of a large, robust Christian community which (despite recent news reports) isn't going away anytime within your lifetime.

Some of the members of that Church are actually smarter than you are.
Some of the members of that Church have actually studied the issue more carefully than you have.
Some of the members of that Church have personally experienced God in their lives.

And there aren't just a few who fit those descriptions. There are thousands. Maybe tens of thousands who fit those criteria. And you know this.

So, you have to come up with an explanation which you tell yourself to deal with the dissonance, and you hang out in this forum where a small gathering of others will continually reinforce one another's lack of faith.

It's group therapy.

"Hi, I'm Larry, and I'm an atheist."
- "Hi, Larry."