Five reasons to believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead

[John Dibble]

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.

[afleitch]

It's disappointing that this thread has went the way it has. The resurrection is a not an historical event (and it's worth noting that the tombs of Jerusalem opening after an earthquake and darkness and the cadavers walking about the city would have piqued some writers interest surely) for the same reason Achilles being snatched by his mother, the god Thetis from the funeral pyre and brought back to life is not an historical event. They are part of a narrative that may have a historical basis, but they are not historical events in themselves as they require a supernatural intervention. A man called Achilles may have died after the Siege of Troy and a man named Jesus of Nazareth may have died after a crucifixion but any further elaboration as demanded by the two narratives leaves history aside.

[🐒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.

[afleitch]

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?

[🐒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.

[afleitch]

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.

The Siege of Troy also makes claims of divine immanence. Indeed the god in my signature is said to have aided Paris in the killing of Achilles. We now know that the once mythical Troy is in fact a real place and the geography and geology of the region matches the description contained within the Illiad which lends credence to the belief that such a battle may have in fact occurred. To the Ancient Greeks it really happened, though some doubted parts of the narrative which were considered far fetched and were perhaps part of an elaboration to the story, just as people now criticise the Passion. If a Jew or a Christian or a Greek Pagan considers history and geography to be a field over which the ‘relationships of human beings and the rest of creation to the divine’ should be played out then it returns history to where it came from; narrative, prose and song alluding to perceptions of reality but peppered with the supernatural, crypto zoological and the divine.

If however Christianity (or Judaism) wants to stake a claim on history it should be very careful.

[Ebowed]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If we were to remove the element of faith from the exercise of accepting Christ as the sacrifice for our sins, doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose?  The preceding paragraph concedes as much, without entirely realizing it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So the line of reasoning here is that even if the Gospels (i.e. four books from the New Testament) were full of myths, which the author doesn't even entertain as a serious suggestion, because other books used from the commonly accepted New Testament corroborate the assertions laid out in the Gospels, they must be true - after all, scholars who have studied the New Testament (i.e., mostly theologians) are in agreement.

By choosing to base the acceptance of the resurrection on the 'honesty and conviction' of the apostles who claimed to see Jesus' resurrected body, this argument is about as cogent as one who looks to the preface of the Book of Mormon to explain why Joseph Smith's viewing of the golden plates was an historical fact - a testament to which I suspect the author of this article would have serious disagreements.

(By the way, the idea that we would need 'substantiating' that something is a myth pretty much encapsulates what is wrong with the pseudo 'fact-based' Christianity movement.)