Board index ‹ Resurrection of Christ

[Corinthian]

Professor Tom Arnold...
Lord Lyndhurst...
Sir Lionel Luckhoo...

And yet, it's still not an accepted historical fact. Historians agree that Jesus very likely did exist, and very likely was crucified. They may even agree that Jesus's followers believed that he was resurrected. But that doesn't mean he actually was resurrected, and there is no historical consensus that he was. If there was such a consensus, you'd be reading about the Resurrection in secular history textbooks.

> If you're starting with an a priori conclusion...

I'm not, as I have demonstrated.

> How is that the supernatural "by definition" cannot exist?

Supernatural = outside of nature. Can you give me a coherent explanation of how something can exist outside of nature?

[jimwalton]

Your comments are GREAT. Thanks for good conversation.

> It's still not an accepted historical fact. ... there is no historical consensus that he was [resurrected].

Excellent observation and comment, but the lack of consensus by historians doesn't necessitate that it's fiction. There is still some scholarly debate as to whether Wm Shakespeare or Sir Walter Raleigh (or someone else) wrote the works attributed to him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespear ... p_question), and there is much lack of consensus in the scientific world about global warming, among many other things. But even if my off-the-top-of-the-head examples aren't good choices, the point of what I was saying is that the evidence is not wanting even though consensus is still wanting.

> Can you give me a coherent explanation of how something can exist outside of nature?

For instance: what existed before the Big Bang? Since current theories hold that before the "Bang" there was nothing but a single dimensionless point where the laws of physics break down and biology is non-existent, then whatever was before the big bang was existing outside of nature.

[Corinthian]

> the lack of consensus by historians doesn't necessitate that it's fiction.

No, it doesn't. It just means that it's not an accepted historical fact. You're sitting here trying to convince me that the historical evidence for the Resurrection is compelling, when the historians themselves do not agree. Some historians might, but not all of them do, not even a majority of them do.

> There is still some scholarly debate that Wm Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him

Is there really? The wikipedia page you linked me to says this:

"Despite the scholarly consensus,[16] a relatively small[17] but highly visible and diverse assortment of supporters, including prominent public figures,[18] have questioned the conventional attribution."

Scholarly consensus is that Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him. The dissenters to that opinion are a small minority.

> and there is much lack of consensus in the scientific world about global warming, among many other things.

The oft-quoted figure is that 97% of climate scientists believe in global warming. Between this and the Shakespeare thing, I'm wondering if you know what the word "consensus" means? It doesn't mean that 100% of relevant experts have to agree, only a significant majority.

If there was as much of a consensus on the historicity of the Resurrection as there is about Shakespeare or climate change, the Resurrection would be included in secular textbooks. You know, like Shakespeare is.

> then whatever was before the big bang was existing outside of nature.

Your conclusion does not follow. I don't think you would find a physicist who would agree that the gravitational singularity which hypothetically preceded the Big Bang, existed "outside of nature".

If it was "outside of nature," then scientists could say nothing about it, since we have already established that science does not deal with the supernatural.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for your reply. Yeah, I know that the number of Shakespeare doubters is small; I don't really know the stats on global warming by scientists (I was just using that as an example because I know there is disagreement about it). Sure I know what "consensus" means: general agreement, and sometimes it means total agreement.

The real discussion is the resurrection. Tremendous work on this subject has been done through the ages, and is still being done. It's certainly not a consensus like Shakespeare and global warming, but there is a strong case for it. In ways I wonder if people really do take the time to investigate it fairly, or if they look at a few things and brush it off without REALLY checking it out.

> I don't think you would find a physicist who would agree that the gravitational singularity which hypothetically preceded the Big Bang, existed "outside of nature".

Since it's hypothetical, as you admit, it's still outside of the purview of physics, and since it's outside of the scope of physics, biology, and chemistry, I think it's quite fair to regard it as "outside of nature." Until it can be established that there is anything "nature" about it, it's both scientifically and philosophically unjustified to ASSUME nature until such has been scientifically established.

[Corinthian]

> It's certainly not a consensus like Shakespeare and global warming...but there is a strong case for it.

It would seem that most historians disagree. And the reason they disagree is because there's no verified evidence that a resurrection has ever occurred in any other instance.

When examining any historical claim, you're basically examining two claims: The first is that the claim is even possible in general, and the second is that this specific claim actually occurred.
For example. If the claim was that Abraham Lincoln could fly, we would first need to establish that it's possible for any person to fly, before we could even begin to accept any historical evidence that might exist for the specific claim.

> Since it's hypothetical, it's still outside of the purview of physics, and since it's outside of the scope of physics, biology, and chemistry, and since the laws of physics are inoperative, I think it's quite fair to regard it as "outside of nature."

What a nonsensical argument. There was a time when scientists were unable to observe microscopic organisms. That doesn't mean that those organisms existed outside of nature just because we couldn't see them, and just because we didn't know they were there.

[jimwalton]

> because there's no verified evidence that a resurrection has ever occurred in any other instance.

Ah, but there doesn't have to be evidence that a resurrection has ever occurred in any other instance. The instance at hand is what matters. We don't have to find more than one Big Bang to consider the evidence reliable.

> When examining any historical claim, you're basically examining two claims: The first is that the claim is even possible in general, and the second is that this specific claim actually occurred.

I agree. The first challenge is "Is it possible?" The second is, "Is it reasonable?"

> There was a time when scientists were unable to observe microscopic organisms. That doesn't mean that those organisms existed outside of nature just because we couldn't see them, and just because we didn't know they were there.

Agreed, but that's a different matter and not a legitimate parallel. In one case it was an instance of lack of capability (microscopes hadn't been invented), and in the other case there is general scientific agreement that the laws of physics do not apply before the big bang. Without scientific evidence of what you are claiming, you are extrapolating an assumption without evidence and showing blind faith in what you choose to believe.

[Corinthian]

> Ah, but there doesn't have to be evidence that a resurrection has ever occurred in any other instance. The instance at hand is what matters.

The point is that you need empirical evidence that the claim is possible. As I said before, When examining any historical claim, you're basically examining two claims: The first is that the claim is even possible in general, and the second is that this specific claim actually occurred. If we had any empirical evidence for the Resurrection, then you'd be right, we wouldn't need to prove that a resurrection has occurred in any other instance. But we don't have any empirical evidence for it. All we have is anecdotal evidence, and that's not sufficient. If you have any claim which challenges our understanding of the laws of nature, you need empirical evidence. No amount of anecdotal evidence can support this claim in the absence of empirical evidence.

Refute my Abraham Lincoln analogy:

If the claim was that Abraham Lincoln could fly, we would first need to establish (empirically) that it's possible for any person to fly, before we could even begin to accept any historical (anecdotal) evidence that might exist for the specific claim.

> I agree. The first challenge is "Is it possible?" The second is, "Is it reasonable?"

The Resurrection story fails in both regards.

> and in the other case there is general scientific agreement that the laws of physics do not apply before the big bang. Without scientific evidence of what you are claiming...

If you're asserting that scientists have no evidence for the Big Bang cosmological model, that is patently absurd.

[jimwalton]

Sure, I understand what you're saying. At the time of Jesus' resurrection, the evidence was both material as well as based on eye-witness testimony. Now, of course, we're dealing with a cold case—a 2,000-year-old cold case. It's sort of like "Did Brutus stab Julius Caesar with a knife?" Prove it. Well, we don't have the knife. We know that Julius is dead, but all we have are some written records of such, and we have to determine how reliable the eye-witnesses were. But your point is before that. You're saying that we need empirical evidence that resurrection is even possible. What would you consider to be empirical evidence? Materially, it can be admitted that historically speaking the grave was empty. We have to ask what brought that about, but the grave was empty. As far as witnesses, we have historical writings from several people that they saw him, bodily, after the alleged resurrection. So what do you consider to be acceptable empirical evidence?

> If you're asserting that scientists have no evidence for the Big Bang cosmological model, that is patently absurd.

Nah, that's not what I'm claiming at all. Somehow you keep misunderstanding me. What I'm saying is that the scientists have no evidence for what existed BEFORE the Big Bang. It's all hypothetical and based on a belief, but there's no empirical evidence.

[Corinthian]

> At the time the evidence was both material as well as based on eye-witness testimony.

By material evidence, I presume you mean the empty tomb, and there are more plausible explanations for an empty tomb. As for the eyewitness testimony: for the people who knew Jesus when he was alive, who witnessed his death and saw his lifeless corpse, and then saw his allegedly resurrected form? Yes, those people would have been justified in believing in the resurrection.
But other people from that time period, people who didn't see Jesus resurrected but only heard second-hand accounts of it from the eyewitnesses? Those people should have been skeptical.

> It's sort of like "Did Brutus stab Julius Caesar with a knife?" Prove it. Well, we don't have the knife. We know that Julius is dead, but all we have are some written records of such, and we have to determine how reliable the eye-witnesses were.

It's really not like that at all. Remove all the specifics, and look at the two claims in their general forms. In regard to the resurrection, the general claim is: A man rose from the dead. In regard to Caesar's murder, the general claim is: A man was stabbed to death. You can see that these are two very different kinds of claims, can't you? We know that people get stabbed to death every day. It's not an uncommon occurrence. That's why we can accept anecdotal evidence that Brutus stabbed Caesar, and consider it an established historical fact. This is the reason why historians are largely willing to accept Jesus's crucifixion as a historical fact. Because it's an incontrovertible fact that people sometimes murder each other by way of crucifixion. On the other hand, people resurrecting from death is not a common occurrence. It's such an uncommon occurrence that we don't have any hard evidence that it has ever happened. The only alleged instances of resurrection are those with dubious evidence. This is why historians are largely not willing to consider Jesus's resurrection a historical fact. Because it's not an incontrovertible fact that people rise from the dead.

> You're saying that we need empirical evidence that resurrection is even possible.

I'm not saying that it's possible for us to obtain empirical evidence for Jesus's resurrection. I'm saying we need incontrovertible evidence that resurrection does occur—in the same way that we have incontrovertible evidence that people sometimes stab one another to death.

> So what do you consider to be acceptable empirical evidence?

Empirical evidence is evidence that is observable or testable. It must be falsifiable.

[jimwalton]

there are more plausible explanations for an empty tomb.
Such as? In the case of Jesus, I think there are not. It doesn't make sense that the idiots merely went to the wrong tomb, that the unbelieving and terrified disciples mounted an attack against the Roman guard and stole the body, that the Jews or Romans stole the body, that the story was wholly manufactured, or that the disciples were hallucinating. None of these explanations hold a bit of water when logically pursued. The disciples could not have credibly proclaimed the resurrection in Jerusalem if Jesus’ body were still in the tomb.
people who didn't see Jesus resurrected but only heard second-hand accounts of it from the eyewitnesses? Those people should have been skeptical.
Much of what we read in the newspapers we don't have the opportunity to witness. So also much of what we learn in history class or science class. Yet we accept it when we have reason to trust the source. Granted, a story of coming back from the dead is a lot to swallow, and yet there is no legitimate reason to distrust the source. It also lends credibility to the story that the testimonies were circulating in the city of the execution a mere three days after the incident. There is every reason to be skeptical, and yet thousands of people believed the story. That begs the question: How is it that so many would come to that conclusion so soon?
> Because it's not an incontrovertible fact that people rise from the Dead.

You're very right. It's a large pill to swallow. Yet we know from history (incontrovertible) that thousands in the very city of his crucifixion, within two months time, were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. We know that a global movement grew from this testimony. And it didn't happen by military force as Islam grew, but by the sheer testimony of the resurrection event and the life change that people experienced. Those count as empirical evidences.

> Empirical evidence is evidence that is observable or testable

True, but we accept a lot that doesn't fall under the category of empirical evidence:
- Transitions from one species to another across the board.
- That the laws of physics apply equally across the whole universe
- String theory
- Life from un-life
- Even intuition is not empirically testable

While we have no incontrovertible evidence, we have to infer to the most reasonable conclusion. When we examine the resurrection of Jesus, while the kind of empirical evidence you might want (and I don't even know what that is except maybe more historical writings corroborating the gospel accounts) is lacking, we can still appraise the evidence we do have (as with some of the scientific theories above) and come to the most reasonable conclusion.