Five reasons to believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It says they said nothing to anyone because they were afraid.  There's no reason to assume they never told anyone once the shock wore off a bit.

afleitch, do you believe that Jesus wasn't really crucified? 

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Not to take away from the deluge of deep conversation discussing this idiotic concept preceding my terse commentary, but retroactive history explained through a particular perspective (especially one so consistently at odds with real science) is almost exclusively devoid of legitimate scientific study. That's not even taking into account the absolute, distinctly absurd proposition that resurrection is a serious scientific or historic topic of academic conversation. I truly hate the intrusion on science perpetrated by a seemingly increasingly active movement of Christian revisionist history...and science. And even further on top of that, this doesn't address the pile of logical fallacies this Christian revisionist "science" leans on exclusively. If this were real science, it would be tossed out without even being considered because its distinct lack of science.

So history shouldn't deal with things that can't be scientifically proven?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Exactly, the sociological aspect is the only significant aspect of the conversation. And a sociological defense of fact is garbage science. You absolutely cannot trust consensus (especially not the consensus of maybe a few hundred arguably existent group of people) to defend scientific fact. Discuss it all you want as some sort of philosophical fantasy, but it's nothing more than that. Adding the testimony of a few imaginary or at least highly unreliable people from several centuries ago to an argument lends it absolutely no credence in science or history. I don't care how legitimate anyone thinks religion is or how trustworthy the believe the word of their less-than-qualified "historians" is who use the word of a fictional book retranslated countless times as a historically accurate source of information, it's NOT science or history. It's offensive to have garbage science and horrifically weak history elevated to the level of study that has earned its place beyond just being popular. It's not a legitimate argument, no matter the vast scale of the majority, to claim popularity as a significant reason to accept a concept as scientifically viable. It's deeply offensive to be told that while no other scientific theory can be legitimately explained by popularity or the word of a work of fiction, it's unacceptable not to make an exception for religion. Religion likes to think of itself as so overarching and undeniable that it has solid footing in society, science, philosophy, and history just because so many people agree with it. There's no merit beyond the fallacious appeal to authority and majority. That's a slap in the face of real science and completely out of line.

There's no scientific evidence for the existence of Socrates or Alaric the Visigoth.  History has to rely at least partially on not-completely-accurate testimony all the time, and has to put some amount of trust in the assumption that the people involved weren't all having mass hallucinations or colluding in complete fabrications. 

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

There's no scientific evidence for the existence of Socrates or Alaric the Visigoth.  History has to rely at least partially on not-completely-accurate testimony all the time, and has to put some amount of trust in the assumption that the people involved weren't all having mass hallucinations or colluding in complete fabrications.

History doesn't say that Socrates or Alaric the Visigoth did anything that would defy the conventions of reality as we know it. There's a justifiable difference in the standards used to determine the historical viability of mundane vs miraculous claims.

Of course. My point is that something being a legitimate question for historical investigation does not depend on whether there is scientific evidence for it, or whether a similar event is replicated. 

The general standard used in history would tell us that in all likelihood Jesus was crucified and that within a few years his followers believed he had been resurrected. The resurrection itself on the other hand is an extraordinary and radical claim, and so I don't expect it should be presented as fact even provisionally within a purely historical work.  But orthodox Christianity does present it as an event in history, and so there is nothing wrong with presenting evidence for it that may be convincing if one has a worldview that is open to it.  The study of history does not belong exclusively to those who hold to an isolated system universe.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

But orthodox Christianity does present it as an event in history, and so there is nothing wrong with presenting evidence for it that may be convincing if one has a worldview that is open to it.  The study of history does not belong exclusively to those who hold to an isolated system universe.

But it must. That is always history's challenge; it has to be maintain the impossible ideal; an unbiased account of what has occurred. Otherwise it must be opened out to anyone from believers in Arthurian legend to Holocaust deniers who have nothing but opinion or belief to offer, rather than evidence so strongly contrary to the status quo that it usurps it. Besides, historical fact will never dissuade a Christian from not believing in Christ. Likewise a Christian will find no real comfort from finding or staking a claim to circumstantial 'historical' evidence in support of the superstitious. So why does it care about that domain?

If someone who doesn't believe the Holocaust occurred takes a fair-minded approach to the specific evidence at hand, they will find the record overwhelming and unavoidable. That doesn't depend upon whether or not one accepts the possibility of the miraculous, or on any a priori assumptions about what sort of proposed events are historically possible. 

Christianity, like Judaism, is a religion that concerns itself with history.  Claims about the redemption of the Israelites from slavery, and of the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ, have been situated in history and not in some completely otherworldly existence.  They have implications and are metaphors for the spiritual, but they are originally claims about divine immanence (God's relationship with the world in its material reality).  Whether these claims can be understood as a historical reality or merely as spiritual metaphor makes a great deal of difference as to the nature of the relationship of human beings and the rest of creation to the divine.