Toto

I would accept an unbiased investigation.

What evidence is there of a resurrection? Merely claims in religious texts. We don't even know if these claims were meant to be historical. We have no archeology, no contemporary writings.

What evidence is there against a resurrection? If in fact Jesus had been resurrected, one would have expected a mass conversion of the residents of Jerusalem at the time, or perhaps of Galilee (wherever he appeared to people.) One would expect some mention in history, something that changed. But, instead, nothing much changed around 30 CE. Even Christian apologists do not claim that the early church was much more than groups of people meeting in houses. The claims about martyrdom among those who knew Jesus are unverifiable.

Instead, the death and resurrection of God, meant for the salvation of all mankind, was hidden away. How is salvation meant to happen if this event is hidden?

The facts of history as we can discover them are consistent with a group calling itself Christians who invented a story of a resurrected savior, whether it was originally meant as allegory but later taken as factual, or was a dramatization of some inner experience.

So, even if we are careful to not reject the supernatural explanation a priori, there is just no coherent evidence that a resurrection happened in the first century.

Roger Pearse

Fine; except that we have been discussing obstacles to this, namely presuppositions that will prevent us being unbiased. Which makes the next two bits somewhat unfortunate.

I wouldn't feel comfortable with supposing that any text that I choose to label as "religious" can immediately be disregarded as evidence. Isn't this just another version of the "we can decide in advance that the resurrection did not happen" argument, but with different words? (Not having a go -- just, let's look at the practical effects of these phrases, and work out what they really mean).

I tend not to use my own expectations as a reliable yardstick. So often they aren't, you see. This was the other point I made earlier, about the culture gap.

NB: I don't want to get into an argument about the evidence for the resurrection, not least because I would first want to ask all the atheists to state and offer evidence for the religious position by which they live their lives. After all, unless we're both using the same standards of evidence, the discussion is futile, as some atheists I have met will merely heap up reasons to ignore the evidence. For, if they cannot do this, won't it render moot any complaints about "lack of evidence" for things they prefer not to believe?

The problem with most atheist-Christian debates is the failure of the latter to hold the former properly to account for their own position. If I am asked to choose between two positions (and why only two?), I at least want to SEE both positions clearly.

All this OT, tho.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Tom Sawyer

I think it's very reasonable to assume that history can verify incredible claims. All that's needed is incredible evidence.

How one would get that kind of evidence in regard to JC's resurrection, I can't say. If St Luke had succeeded in his quest to find the Holy Camcorder of Antioch, then it would be different, but as it is there are only some sparse accounts written decades later by people who may or may not have been there which were compiled into a political document by people with an agenda a couple hundred years after the fact. It's not much as a confirmatory document, but if there were better things out there to validate its claims, then history could verify the claim without much trouble. So, it's not that it can't be verified by historical accounts, it just isn't.

Your job would be easier by focusing on the claims that are directly refuted by the evidence, such as the flood, the sun stopping for a day, the Genesis account, the existence of the Roman Empire and other items like that where the historical accounts of the matter in question doesn't leave any ambiguities.

thedistillers

It has very little to do with "atheism"; I don't even think it's controversial amongst Christian apologists that 1) the resurrection is a miracle and hence an incredible event 2) the prior probability for the resurrection is low.

Could that probability change after an unbiased investigation? Yes, of course. I don't agree with the OP that history can't 'verify' an incredible claim. Certainly, with enough evidence, we could reasonably conclude an incredible event happened.

Donnmathan

Roger, I can't speak for others, but the reason I (and many of those I've seen discuss the subject) reject the Bible as a source is that in this case (and so many others), it is the only evidence for the event. No other known contemporary texts mention the event, there is no evidence of the mass of conversions one would expect, nor did it apparently have any serious impact on the social order of the area for centuries afterward. We expect such a thing to send immediate ripples of reaction out through society, and yet there seem to be none.

Contrast this to Pompeii. There are numerous records from before its destruction that mention the city being captured by this or that nation, it being annexed by Rome, and one of its more famous residents, Pliny the Elder. It is even mentioned as a port in records from several different nations. Pliny the Younger recorded its destruction first-hand, and it has since been dug from the ashes. The combination of all that evidence paints a pretty good picture of a city that was founded around 700-600 BCE, and destroyed in 79 CE.

So...why is there no record of a man rising from the dead, except for one single book that is full of self-contradiction and demonstratably false 'facts'?

spamandham

This is nonsense Roger. History is not the only means at our disposal to validate that supernatural claims are bunk. We can examine modern supernatural claims to arrive at such a conclusion, and then view history through that lens.

To give credence to the idea that although modern supernatural claims are bunk, ancient ones might not have been, is nothing more than special pleading.

Amaleq13

That is more an incoherent concept than an incredible claim.

The incredible claim is that a man returned to life after being truly dead (ie brain dead) for three days. And, as I've already pointed out, anyone with a basic knowledge of biology and physics is sufficiently informed to recognize it as an incredible claim.

Who said anything about a lack of investigation? The fundamental basis for any scientific investigation is a general knowledge of science. On that basis alone one is certainly justified in considering the claim that an embalmed body could return to life to be unbelievable. On that basis alone one is certainly justified in considering the claim that a man truly dead for three days could return to life to be unbelievable.

Such inherently implausible claims require far more support than any sort of historical record could provide to be considered credible.

Absolutely. It is the opposite, empty-headed, pseudo-skepticism you're selling that no one should adopt as it serves only to allow foolish beliefs to be retained. All claims are not created equal, Roger, though it certainly benefits foolish beliefs to pretend otherwise.

Solo

That's right Roger, I understand that you would not want jump to any rash conclusions, but why do you assume that Doug forgot his high school biology ?


Jiri

Roger Pearse

This argument will seem less impressive to you if you start researching ancient events and mythologies, and see the kinds of evidence that are available. But it is a mistake to suppose that the events of the life of Christ are known to us only from the various texts which today are bound together as the NT. They are known from the texts of the Fathers of the church also, and, to a very limited extent, from non-Christian sources.

NB: as soon as people start chanting the word "contemporary", expect a fraud. The main sources for the reign of Tiberius are Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio and Josephus.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

You do not, I hope, expect a reply to this rather intemperate rant?

All the best,

Roger Pearse