In what way is the Resurrection the best explanation?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

the belief of resurrection even without evidence is the basis of Christianity!

Well done. Do you have any more excepts from 'The Book Of The Bleeding Obvious' you'd like to share?

Boru

[Acrobat]

Of course the fact that given the bible narrative, there is no rhyme nor reason for Rome crucifying Yeshua.  At the time Iudea was a separate client state not part of Rome proper, so Roman law didn't apply.  Secondly if it did apply Yeshua didn't commit any crime under Roman law, beither was he a political threat (in fact, given his utterances Yeshua was the kind of religious figure Rome would have liked).  And finally he wasn't convicted by Rome but by the Sanhedrin, who didn't apply crucifiction as a punishment.  And they were very careful to not step on the toes of local laws and courts.

How many Messiah claimants did Rome allow to live?

[Succubus]

Of course the fact that given the bible narrative, there is no rhyme nor reason for Rome crucifying Yeshua.  At the time Iudea was a separate client state not part of Rome proper, so Roman law didn't apply.  Secondly if it did apply Yeshua didn't commit any crime under Roman law, beither was he a political threat (in fact, given his utterances Yeshua was the kind of religious figure Rome would have liked).  And finally he wasn't convicted by Rome but by the Sanhedrin, who didn't apply crucifiction as a punishment.  And they were very careful to not step on the toes of local laws and courts.

How many Messiah claimants did Rome allow to live?

Thousands of them.
Palestine at that time was shoulder deep in prophets, messiahs and preachers, why would Rome give any sort of fuck about them?

[Acrobat]

How many Messiah claimants did Rome allow to live?

Thousands of them.
Palestine at that time was shoulder deep in prophets, messiahs and preachers, why would Rome give any sort of fuck about them?

Can you name of around the time that wasn’t?

The three I can think of Judah, Bar Kochba, and I forgot the other guys name where all killed by the Romans. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the Romans weren’t going to look to kindly on a messiah claimant.

[LastPoet]

The dude could walk on water, feed a lot of people, heal the sick, resurect the dead, yet, he couldn't unleash a can of whoopass on some puny romans?

Heh, even Spartacus was killed by the romans, but not before kicking the shit out of some of them, with rather mundane methods. But the supernatural son of god that was also his dad, couldn't kill one. Weak.

[Vicki Q]

I think the belief in a risen Jesus is better explained by potential naturalistic explanations than by a potential supernatural one

<snip>

Too many necessary information withheld from us so that one cannot really make any confident case for what triggered the Christ faith, but the point is the case for the Resurrection is just damn weak.

It's the case that the vanishing of Jesus' body is a necessary condition for the rise of the early church from within Judaism, with the belief set that they had.

However, it's not a sufficient one.

So we have to account for the arrival, from within C1 Judaism, of a branch which believed that the long awaited Kingdom of God had been inaugurated; that death had been defeated; that resurrection (a fringe element within Judaism) was a thing and completely innovatively was in two parts; that the universe, humanity and God's people had been freed; that the promise to Abraham had been completed; and that the forgiveness and exile of God's people had been enacted.

Quite a dynamite set of claims.

We have clear historical evidence, albeit biased, as to the reasons that the early church gave for this belief set. The resurrection is the best explanation for the rise of the early church, with the belief set they had.

[mordant]

We have clear historical evidence, albeit biased, as to the reasons that the early church gave for this belief set. The resurrection is the best explanation for the rise of the early church, with the belief set they had.

The resurrection is a claim, not a fact.

That claim / doctrine might be a key distinctive. But it is so fantastical that by itself I can't see it being the explanation for the success of Christianity.

I think it was a complex of things combined with dumb luck, shaken and stirred over a few centuries. In the end, the early church's alignment with temporal power structures, and the church being seen by those power structures as a useful fulcrum of control, is probably the closest thing we have to a discrete explanation for Christianity's enduring success (if accounting only a third of the world population as adherents after 2,000 years, and being about to lose the dubious title of "world's most popular religion" to Islam is what success looks like, anyway).

[Fake Messiah]

; that the universe, humanity and God's people had been freed;

Universe was freed? From what?

[GrandizerII]

So we have to account for the arrival, from within C1 Judaism, of a branch which believed that the long awaited Kingdom of God had been inaugurated;

Which, according to many NT scholars, started out as an earthly apocalyptic claim at the start (which wasn't that remarkable given other contemporary sources that were apocalyptic in theme as well), and then when things didn't occur as predicted, evolved to a more spiritual coming of the Kingdom.

that death had been defeated;

To me, this seems to be begging the question.

that resurrection (a fringe element within Judaism) was a thing and completely innovatively was in two parts;

Even if the belief itself was unique at the time and not very Jewish (and this is a big if), it served early Christianity well to hold to this as a central doctrine. The purported Messiah, after all, failed to save his people from the Roman occupants, as had been hoped for. The Resurrection thesis helped to rescue the early movement from this embarrassment.

that the universe, humanity and God's people had been freed; that the promise to Abraham had been completed; and that the forgiveness and exile of God's people had been enacted.

Again, feels like begging the question.

Quite a dynamite set of claims.

Depends on what you mean by "dynamite", lol. You made a set of claims, but the set itself doesn't do well in countering the alternative possible explanations I've proposed or some of the other alternatives that have been proposed. And the reason why is because some of the claims you made assume the Resurrection happened and the other claims didn't point to evidence that favors it against other alternative explanations.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's the case that the vanishing of Jesus' body is a necessary condition for the rise of the early church from within Judaism, with the belief set that they had.

No more so than zeus and his children defeating the kraken is a necessary condition for the rise of classical greek henotheism (or the sun standing still in the sky for jewish henotheism.)

We have clear historical evidence, albeit biased, as to the reasons that the early church gave for this belief set. The resurrection is the best explanation for the rise of the early church, with the belief set they had.

Best explanations for beliefs don't depend on the novel beliefs of claimants centuries in the future, see above.  Religion is a social phenomena.  To treat it otherwise is to begin with a category error.  

A missing body, let alone a resurrection, is in no way shape or form an explanation, best or any kind, for a set of beliefs. In the case of the christian belief, the antonine plagues combined with imperial positioning and the transition of government from the hands of one dynasty to another account for the contents of the early churches beliefs in their totality. They had a smorgasboard to pick from, some known, most only known by passing derision in a screed against heresies. Whatever they chose, for any reason they chose, was going to be the fabric of christianity as we began to know it.

The "early church" wasn't a bunch of pious believers. It wasn't even early. It was a late roman mob leveraged for political support and appointments. If a person were to study human belief in earnest, and wanted to explain the rise of what eventually became the catholic church, they'd start there. Not with the myths and legends and fables ret-conned after it's establishment and set in some distant past or place.

You can do a simple thought experiment to understand why any other approach is ludicrous. Imagine that I set out to create a religion. What kind of religion do you imagine it would be? Use that same critical (and understanding) lens on christian beliefs that you are now employing for my "made up" religion, and things will come into a more meaningful focus. I may say...in my religions founding documentation, that I believe in such and such for reason A - but it would be a mistake to take me at my word. It would be a mistake, even, to think that there are no unspoken (and potentially unintentional) B's and C's, providing utility in the belief, preventing it from becoming a free rider.