Five reasons to believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead

[Beet]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/five-reasons-to-believe-that-jesus-christ-rose-from-the-dead/2013/03/31/59dc712a-9a05-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_singlePage.html?tid=obnetwork

(1) Most scholars agree that Jesus’ tomb was discovered empty shortly afterwards. With almost two dozen reasons favoring this report alone, what best explains this? Other hypotheses do not account for all the data.

(2) Many eyewitnesses assert that they saw the risen Jesus, both individually and in groups

(3) Further, critical scholars also agree that Paul received this material from the other apostles at an exceptionally early date-only about five years after the crucifixion. But since the others knew the reports before Paul did, we are right back to the events themselves. Even the best-known critical scholar today, non-Christian specialist Bart Ehrman, dates several Christian traditions as early as just a year or two after the crucifixion!

(4) But why should we believe that these eyewitnesses were being honest? We have first century sources that the three apostles mentioned above were all martyred: Paul, Peter, and James the brother of Jesus. Of course, people die for all sorts of ideas, but only for what they are convinced is true. But unlike others, the apostles were in a position to know whether or not they had seen Jesus Christ alive after his death. By being willing to die, scholars agree that they were convinced that Jesus had indeed appeared to them. At the very least, this addresses their honesty and conviction.

5) Of these eyewitnesses, Paul was a persecutor of the early Christians, and James was an unbeliever. Skeptical scholars accept this in both cases. But why did they become believers? Again, they were certainly in a position to know whether the risen Jesus had appeared to them.

[© tweed]

I like the idea that the discipline of history cannot comment on miracles or supernatural events, ie, determining the likelihood of the 'hypothesis' that Christ rose bodily from the dead.

[afleitch]

It’s an interesting read but essentially its appeal is this; a dead man must have came alive again because people who were his followers saw it, talked about it and died for it. Yes people die for things they are convinced are true; doesn't mean that they happened. The only reason anyone can have to believe in the resurrection, as Chrisitians understand it is their faith; that is a more honest statement than trying to justify it logically.

David Hume in An Enquiry on Human Understanding said:

‘When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.’

Therefore, were the witnesses lying or did a man rise from the dead? Did the witnesses misunderstand what they were seeing or did a man rise from the dead? Those are the two pertinent questions. The hypothesis that a man rose from the dead is the most miraculous of these events that could ever occur, so the likelihood is that the latter events; those that are more mundane, occurred.

Let us presume for a second that for the witnesses, Jesus appeared to have 'died' and 'rose again' in three days. Let’s assume too that they were not lying or fabricating the story. While this is the far likeliest of the three to have happened it would de-rail this discussion so I will put it to one side.

How did they know he was dead? How would you know someone was dead and could not be revived? It’s an issue even those who are well trained in such matters today can have a difficulty in ascertaining with absolute certainty. How about two thousand years ago? What about the hundreds of thousands of people who up until early last century may have slipped into a coma and were presumed dead? Or their heart stopped beating and died as no basic techniques were applied to save them? Exhumed cadavers have shown signs of a struggle with the corpse contorted and scratches on the lid. We presumed people to be dead, when in fact they were alive.

But 3 days. Surely that’s another level. In a way it is; José Omar Suarez an Argentinian man, spent 3 days at a local morgue after paramedics declared him dead, but in fact he was only fainted because of an epileptic attack. 72 hours later he woke up. He spent three days in the cold, no water, no food and was able to wake up and walk out. The same thing happened to the Russian woman Hardy Lyudmila Steblitskaya. She has had the misfortune of being declared dead twice and spending three days in a morgue but each time has came ‘alive’, the most recent in December of last year. In April of last year a 95 year-old Chinese woman climbed out of her own coffin six days after she was declared dead following a fall. Li Xiufeng was placed in a coffin kept in her house so friends and relatives could pay their respects. But the day before the funeral, neighbours found an empty coffin and later discovered her in the kitchen cooking.

These may be 'miraculous' and certainly unusual recoveries but they can be explained without tresorting to the supernatural.

What about Jesus’ wounds? Cuts to the head don’t need further elaboration. The hammering of nails (if used) into the wrists and feet is barbaric, but again not life threatening. I've stood on a nail that has went through the tissue of my foot. It was agonising. It was agonising to remove it, but there was hardly any blood because of the wound site (surface blood vessels and a high concetration of small bones) and the implement used (a nail, which when driven in stems the flow of blood to allow it time to clot) All I received was a tetanus boost and a dressing. Even without that it would be likely to have healed over fairly quickly. As for the wound in the side, again it would depend on it's depth and where in the abdomen it was. In my line of work I've seen photographic evidence of similar injuries. Other than loss of blood they can heal over. Even incidences where some of the internal tissue is lost. The stemming of blood and even a primitive dressing of wounds was commonplace at that time; the graves of Gladiators have been found where horrific blows to the head and to the side have been received and the bone shows signs of growth and repair meaning they survived their injuries.

How long was Jesus on the cross? The gospels are surprisingly specific about it. It seems from then ‘third to the ninth hour’ to be at least six hours, possibly seven. Now crucifixion was a process where the victim could be alive for days. Jesus survived for just a few hours before people thought he had died. Josephus has an account of survival after crucifixion.

'"I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered."

So in summary;

Can a man survive a crown of thorns? (yes)
3 days without water? (yes)
Being nailed to the cross (yes – see Josephus, Meiji Japan and countless modern examples)
Being pierced in the side (yes – see contemporary skeletons of gladiators or a trip to a modern A&E award)
Being pronounced dead (yes – compare our understanding of what it means to be ‘dead’ which in itself is not 100% accurate with the understanding of the ancient world re comas, the Glasgow Scale etc)
Being in a cold tomb? (yes – ideal conditions in fact for resuscitation)

The key point is this. Returning to David Hume; if we accept that the gospel accounts are true what is the more plausible explanation? The implausible but not impossible; ie, he survived it all even with the odds stacked against him or the impossible; that he was dead. Absolutely, and irreversibly dead so that the only way he could come back to life is by supernatural intervention.

Indeed, coming back to life by supernatural intervention seems to be fairly banal in 1st century Jerusalem. Matthew says; ‘and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus' resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.’

Now that’s something that would have caught peoples attention and been recorded by the authorities; the dead coming to life and greeting their neighbours. Yet is it recorded?

[DC Al Fine]

Can a man survive a crown of thorns? (yes)
3 days without water? (yes)
Being nailed to the cross (yes – see Josephus, Meiji Japan and countless modern examples)
Being pierced in the side (yes – see contemporary skeletons of gladiators or a trip to a modern A&E award)
Being pronounced dead (yes – compare our understanding of what it means to be ‘dead’ which in itself is not 100% accurate with the understanding of the ancient world re comas, the Glasgow Scale etc)
Being in a cold tomb? (yes – ideal conditions in fact for resuscitation)

You forgot the flogging, but let's assume he can survive that as well. Now the money issue isn't just survival, but escape as well. Your "ressurection" examples both involve people who have relatively easy ways to get out via lifting a coffin lid or getting off a morgue bed. In Jesus's case it wouldn't be nearly as simple. Even if we say he miraculously didn't die, what makes you think he could move a boulder out of his way, sneak past some Roman guards and then survive 40 days walking around without medical attention despite many many open wounds?

[DemPGH]

1) Well, I don't know what "data" that could be since there is no solid evidence that he existed, and there were other Messiahs at the time of whom similar stories were told. Someone took the body or els it was never there to begin with, I would say. The resuscitation argument is interesting - after taking the beating that Jesus supposedly took, he probably wouldn't be up walking around a few hours or a day later.

2) Well, people see all sorts of things. This is one of those items that without it being known to happen, and it does not happen, we have to discount this as mythological storytelling, like the miracles, which were either staged or else made up. Perhaps someone saw someone who looked like Jesus after the crucifixion, and then the myths started. The resurrection is also symbolic - "he lives in our hearts."

3) and 4) are peripheral issues.

5) To say someone converted so Jesus must have risen from the dead is fallacious reasoning to say the least.

The thing is, I don't see that there will be anything close to empirical evidence for any of this, so I do not accept it. To accept it you must suspend critical thought and analysis, and just believe something that your better sense tells you cannot be. The other things is, human beings are imaginative creatures - we've been inventing mythological stories about all kinds of deities (there is archaeological evidence from 30,000 years ago of people making statues of half lion / half man things and half man / half fish kinds of things - depending upon where they lived) for a very, very long time. This is all more of it.

[afleitch]

Can a man survive a crown of thorns? (yes)
3 days without water? (yes)
Being nailed to the cross (yes – see Josephus, Meiji Japan and countless modern examples)
Being pierced in the side (yes – see contemporary skeletons of gladiators or a trip to a modern A&E award)
Being pronounced dead (yes – compare our understanding of what it means to be ‘dead’ which in itself is not 100% accurate with the understanding of the ancient world re comas, the Glasgow Scale etc)
Being in a cold tomb? (yes – ideal conditions in fact for resuscitation)

You forgot the flogging, but let's assume he can survive that as well. Now the money issue isn't just survival, but escape as well. Your "ressurection" examples both involve people who have relatively easy ways to get out via lifting a coffin lid or getting off a morgue bed. In Jesus's case it wouldn't be nearly as simple. Even if we say he miraculously didn't die, what makes you think he could move a boulder out of his way, sneak past some Roman guards and then survive 40 days walking around without medical attention despite many many open wounds?

You’re missing the point of my exercise. Ultimately the choice I present to you, if you believe the account to be true is this;

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I understand that as Christian you accept the ‘impossible’ miracle over the ‘implausable but not impossible’ miracle as identified by Hume. Given that in previous threads I have already indicated that I have issues with the Gospel accounts (we have three separate accounts of what he even said when he died) and I am not a Christian, then I personally believe that what was described in the Gospels with respect to the Passion (which has echoes of Greek Tragedy plays but that’s another issue) did not happen. That is my position. But if it did occur, then I sought to explain how it could have happened. Any possibility, even far fetched is by definition ‘more possible’ than the impossible.

To address your points (and to address issues I should have talked about earlier) yes people can survive floggings. They can survive everything Jesus got thrown at him and live. Now we are told Jesus was taken to a tomb owned by Joseph of Arimathea after permission was given from Pilate. Indeed it was Joseph who had him cut down. Indeed when Joseph asks for the body, the Greek word he uses is σῶμα -‘soma’ which means body but does not necessarily infer living or dead. But Pilate responds with the word ‘ptoma’ meaning corpse. So Joseph was asking for the body and Pilate giving him the corpse if you will. Indeed we are told that Pilate was ‘astonished that he should have died so soon, called the centurion to him, to ask if he was dead already  and when he heard the centurion’s report, gave Joseph the body.’ We can sympathise with Pilate’s shock that a man died after crucifixion so soon and we can forgive the centurion for not being an expert on gauging signs of life. This exchange I feel, is quite telling because of the words that Mark has used.

Now John says that this tomb was surrounded by a garden which would lead one to assume that it wasn’t just a tomb in the middle of nowhere but on private property (though away from the home as was custom) or at least on a piece of tended land. Both Joseph and Nicodemus, according to John visited that night with an ‘ointment made of myrrh and aloes’. Coincidently while myrrh seems to beautifully echo the gift given to him as a newborn it has a medicinal use; it helps clot the blood and is used as an antiseptic. Aloe also has a similar use. It’s the very sort of thing you would use in basic medicine to treat someone for the same injuries that Jesus sustained. That may not have been their intent and I can accept that; we are told, for the benefit of the gentile audience that this was burial custom, the tahara, though it doesn’t seem to have been carried out to it’s fullest extent. However the fact that the victim was so well attended in the hours after his death (and the gospels are meticulous in the detail) may have actually assisted his recovery.

The next thing you know, the stone has been rolled/taken away. Now if a stone was placed over the entrance of the tomb then it must have been placed there. Humans must have placed it there. It must have been light enough for it to be moved by either one man, a group of men, a farm animal or a system of wedges. Indeed, Matthew says that it was Joseph himself who was able to roll the stone and then they ‘made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard.’ So how was the stone removed? There are three options available to us: 1. It was moved by those who placed it there. 2. It was moved by the person in the tomb. 3. It was moved by supernatural means. The first option is the most plausible. The second less plausible but not impossible given that we are told that one man was able to move it in place and the third impossible. Again I accept that as Christian, the third option is your belief. As a non Christian then I would subscribe to the first option. I would take option two over three. The removal of the stone does not require a supernatural act as a supernatural act was not required to place it there.

On the final matter the response is simple. If you see man walking around with wounds for forty days then why assume that the wounds he has are of a ‘life threatening’ level? Surely if he was able to walk around and meet with people he knows his wounds obviously aren’t life threatening at least in the short term, as he would be unable to do such things. Twice in my life I have impaled my foot on a nail which has buried itself in the cartilage. I can assure you that it bleeds and weeps for a few weeks while recovering and is aggravated by warm baths or not wearing shoes.

Once again all these things happening, if they did happen may sound implausible but they are infinitely more plausible than the impossible; the raising of the deceased. If you belive that the impossible happened then your faith informs you. All of this is moot. However for those who do not believe, the sequence of events if accepted as real (which the believer will accept and the unbeliever dispute) does not bring such credibility to the supernatural having occured that one has to dispense with the improbable but possible in favour of a supernatural intervention; a miracle.

EDIT: It's worth pointing out that when the gospel writers try to be specific things actually start to fall apart, take Mark 16 for example;

‘When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, so that they might come and anoint Him. Very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. They were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?” Looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large. Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. nd he said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him.“ But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’”They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.’

So how did Mark know it had happened? If Mary Magdalene and Mary fled and told no one, how did Mark know that it had occurred if no one was told about it? All we see is Jesus revealing himself to the disciples.

[🐒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? 

[afleitch]

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

It doesn't matter here nor there if he was. There may not have been one Jesus of Nazareth at all. If there was and he was crucified he either passed out and was cut down after a short time on the cross and was revived or died. Or he really died up there and was cut down. I do not believe that he was clinically dead beyond any shadow of a doubt and was brought back to life through supernatural means. I understand that Christians need to believe that but I'm not a Christian.

[fezzyfestoon]

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.

[🐒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?

[fezzyfestoon]

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?

It shouldn't deal with things that have absolutely no standing in any scientific theory, study, or realistic expansion of any number of many, many legitimate scientific concepts. The problem isn't even as much rooted in seriously considering something nonsensical as it is that nonsense having accomplished nothing of scientific note to achieve its standing as something that deserves to be discussed. If there's any real scientific meat to this, it would be worth at least acknowledging if just for the wonder of it. But there is no science to it, it's all solely rooted in the distinct absence of any science at all in the "scientific" discussion of it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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?

It shouldn't deal with things that have absolutely no standing in any scientific theory, study, or realistic expansion of any number of many, many legitimate scientific concepts. The problem isn't even as much rooted in seriously considering something nonsensical as it is that nonsense having accomplished nothing of scientific note to achieve its standing as something that deserves to be discussed. If there's any real scientific meat to this, it would be worth at least acknowledging if just for the wonder of it. But there is no science to it, it's all solely rooted in the distinct absence of any science at all in the "scientific" discussion of it.

And so, because of its lack of scientific merit, we shouldn't discuss it as history? Are you aware that not every discipline is a special case of the natural sciences?

[fezzyfestoon]

I think in particular reference to the completely unfounded and unrealistic suggestion of resurrection being historically accurate and scientifically possible, the particularly weak religious and sociological defense absolutely disqualifies it from any serious consideration at all, yes. Someday we may have a conversation about, if there's any science or history at all on its side. As of now however, there's literally not a single reason to acknowledge its merit beyond superstition and fantasy.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think in particular reference to the completely unfounded and unrealistic suggestion of resurrection being historically accurate and scientifically possible, the particularly weak religious and sociological defense absolutely disqualifies it from any serious consideration at all, yes. Someday we may have a conversation about, if there's any science or history at all on its side. As of now however, there's literally not a single reason to acknowledge its merit beyond superstition and fantasy.

But there clearly is. You may think that the religious defense is 'particularly weak'--which is of course a self-perpetuating belief in that you think that because you don't believe in it and you don't believe in it because you think that; this is entirely reasonable and perfectly fine as far as it goes--but the sociological defense is not only sound, but the only part of the entire conversation that's relevant to the actual discipline of history in any meaningful way. Dismissing the origin of the largest religion on the planet as 'superstition and fantasy' is almost as amazingly bad historiography as accepting it as objective fact. Setting aside the question of the origin and focusing on the development of the religion in question as a religion--which historians who actually know what they're talking about don't treat as interchangeable with 'superstition and fantasy'--is a less unbelievably irresponsible and presumptive course of action.

In other words, I essentially agree with Tweed, and think that the article that Beet posted is indeed kind of stupid, but for what you, my positivist compatriot, would probably consider all the wrong reasons.

[fezzyfestoon]

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.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm not entirely sure the terms of the argument at hand are the same for you as they are for me. In fact, I'd be surprised if they were.

[fezzyfestoon]

I'm not entirely sure the terms of the argument at hand are the same for you as they are for me. In fact, I'd be surprised if they were.

That seems to be our endpoint quite often. And it's a realistic one. Truths that you take as infallible are nonsense to me because I don't have "faith". So when that very faith is the foundation of an attempt to expand the conversation of religious texts into science and history, I simply laugh and move on to reality.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm not entirely sure the terms of the argument at hand are the same for you as they are for me. In fact, I'd be surprised if they were.

That seems to be our endpoint quite often.

Sad but true.

[fezzyfestoon]

I'm not entirely sure the terms of the argument at hand are the same for you as they are for me. In fact, I'd be surprised if they were.

That seems to be our endpoint quite often.

Sad but true.

It's just a fact of life for me that Christians will never see things for the way they can factually be defined as being. I don't take religion seriously in part because they don't take science or history seriously. If there was a legitimate defense consistent with any similar nonreligious effort of the things they were trying to defend, it would just be a different perspective rather than an infuriating intrusion on the things I do take seriously.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm not entirely sure the terms of the argument at hand are the same for you as they are for me. In fact, I'd be surprised if they were.

That seems to be our endpoint quite often.

Sad but true.

It's just a fact of life for me that Christians will never see things for the way they can factually be defined as being. I don't take religion seriously in part because they don't take science or history seriously. If there was a legitimate defense consistent with any similar nonreligious effort of the things they were trying to defend, it would just be a different perspective rather than an infuriating intrusion on the things I do take seriously.

Switch around a few words and concepts and that's my feeling as well.

[fezzyfestoon]

Exactly

[anvi]

A prof. at Liberty University thinks there is incontestable proof that Jesus rose from the dead?  Imagine that.  Are we sure this piece wasn't the writing sample he submitted when he applied for the job in the first place?

In any case, for a philosophy professor, Habermas sure likes to slip subtle equivocations underneath the door.  He constantly makes reference to the Gospels as "texts that are accepted by virtually all scholars" in the field, and sometimes adds the rider that the texts are accepted by all scholars "as historical."  Of course the texts are accepted as legitimate first century documents produced by followers of the Christian movement, and of course they obviously make historical claims.  But that is far from saying that "virtually all" scholars in the field accept these texts as true and as making otherwise legitimate and corroborated historical claims.  There has been considerable skepticism about these latter possibilities for a very long time.  Those five points will only seem compelling if one accepts the texts as historically accurate in the first place, but that's the very point many scholars vigorously dispute.     

[🐒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. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The evidence shows that Jesus was just some random guy who was most likely killed 1980 years ago as of this last Wednesday.

[DemPGH]

I think in particular reference to the completely unfounded and unrealistic suggestion of resurrection being historically accurate and scientifically possible, the particularly weak religious and sociological defense absolutely disqualifies it from any serious consideration at all, yes. Someday we may have a conversation about, if there's any science or history at all on its side. As of now however, there's literally not a single reason to acknowledge its merit beyond superstition and fantasy.

Out of intellectual honesty, and for what it's worth, you're right - there really must be a differentiation between History and mythology. Empirical standards absolutely exist in History - otherwise, for e.g., we'd teach that King Arthur existed, had a 14th century military in the 6th century, had a round table, a huge castle, went looking for the holy grail, and so on.

I've said before that I question whether or not "Theology" is even really a valid academic subject. I'm sure there are quarters where I'd get into a great deal of trouble for suggesting that, but really, my only point is that we as a society and as educated people really bend over backwards to afford religion a nearly untouchable spot where [empirical] standards that are applied to quite literally everything else are not applied to it. I only think that should change.