Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[Apologiaphoenix]

You still don't get it, do you, Nick? In our culture, the onus of providing evidence is upon the person making the claim, not the skeptic who questions the claim. I have never claimed to have the (naturalistic) explanation for the early Christian belief of a Resurrection. I have no idea how this belief developed. I have only questioned your claim that the bodily Resurrection is the only plausible explanation for this belief.

Actually, no. I said my explanation is the best explanation for it. When other "plausible" theories have been presented, I have found that based on evidence they are rather implausible. I also in a whole "debate" made my case. Once the case has been made, it is the burden of the denier to state why the case is not made.

The onus for evidence is on you, friend, not me, and you have zero evidence for the alleged Resurrection event itself,

That must explain why you did so well in that debate. Oh wait. You didn't. You could not refute my charges at all but just gave "Just so" stories.

as it happened; no one admits to witnessing this "car accident", an analogy many Christians are fond of using.

Interesting since I did not make my case dependent on the Gospels.

NO ONE, even in the Bible, claims to have watched the dead body come back to life or to have watched the body leave the tomb! The only evidence that you have are claims of post-death sightings, which in cumulative human history, come a dime a dozen, and an empty grave, which in cumulative human history, is not an unheard of phenomenon.

Um. NO. Not the only evidence. Those two together are something different. Throw in the social context and the belief of skeptics and of those who had everything to lose and it suddenly changes.

And then, of course, your generalizations and assumptions about first century Jews. But again, history has ample evidence of generalizations being violated. But Resurrections are an unheard of phenomena, even by your own standards! Even you admit, it only happened ONCE...if at all.

And I do so with sufficient evidence since you have not refuted it. As for generalizations, I have asked you for evidence of these anachronistic Jews and Gentiles running around and you've produced zero evidence of them. For my evidence of miracles, I produced a whole work cataloging them.

So put it all together. Which is more probable: A one time, previously unheard of event, or, an exception to the usual behavior and thinking of an ancient people.

So let's see which is more probable. Scholars in the field who have studied the social context for their lives knowing what they're talking about, or you showing up and proving them all wrong?

The onus is on you, Nick, regarding your extraordinary claim for the development of the early Christian belief in a resurrection. The onus is on you to prove miracles are real events. The onus is not on me or on any other skeptic of your supernatural claim. And don't ask me to read more books. I am not going to do your work for you! YOU provide the evidence. The fact that no historian includes this alleged event in any university history textbook is proof that your evidence, to date, is insufficient, notwithstanding your howls of "foul"; alleging a bias by the entire academic community.

You're not going to do my work for me. That's cute. So I read the books and I challenge you to read them and you say you're not going to do my work for me. Got it. You're afraid to read a book that challenges your worldview and of anything that can't be found for free on the internet.

I backed my case. I'm waiting for you to back yours.

[Gary]

Actually, no. I said my explanation is the best explanation for it. When other "plausible" theories have been presented, I have found that based on evidence they are rather implausible. I also in a whole "debate" made my case. Once the case has been made, it is the burden of the denier to state why the case is not made.



That must explain why you did so well in that debate. Oh wait. You didn't. You could not refute my charges at all but just gave "Just so" stories.



Interesting since I did not make my case dependent on the Gospels.



Um. NO. Not the only evidence. Those two together are something different. Throw in the social context and the belief of skeptics and of those who had everything to lose and it suddenly changes.



And I do so with sufficient evidence since you have not refuted it. As for generalizations, I have asked you for evidence of these anachronistic Jews and Gentiles running around and you've produced zero evidence of them. For my evidence of miracles, I produced a whole work cataloging them.



So let's see which is more probable. Scholars in the field who have studied the social context for their lives knowing what they're talking about, or you showing up and proving them all wrong?



You're not going to do my work for me. That's cute. So I read the books and I challenge you to read them and you say you're not going to do my work for me. Got it. You're afraid to read a book that challenges your worldview and of anything that can't be found for free on the internet.

I backed my case. I'm waiting for you to back yours.

"So let's see which is more probable. Scholars in the field who have studied the social context for their lives knowing what they're talking about, or you showing up and proving them all wrong?"

Would you please list the source that states that the majority of NT scholars believe that the bodily Resurrection is the only plausible explanation for the early Christian belief in Jesus' Resurrection? That is your claim, Nick. Don't deny it. You have poo-poo'd any possible other explanation for this early Christian belief as being implausible. So back up your claim that the majority of NT scholars agree with you.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Someone doesn't know how to read.

Try again and see if you can get what I really claimed.

[Gary]

Someone doesn't know how to read.

Try again and see if you can get what I really claimed.

Then you need to take a refresher course in English. This is what you said:

"When other "plausible" theories have been presented, I have found that based on evidence they are rather implausible."

By putting quotes around the word "plausible" you are insinuating that only others are alleging the existence of plausible, alternative, naturalistic explanations, but once you have evaluated them, you find them "implausible". In plain English that means that, in your opinion, there are no other plausible explanations presented to date, for the early Christian belief in a Resurrection, other than your supernatural resurrection/reanimation of a dead body.

That is your position, Nick, so admit it. Your position is that there is only one plausible explanation for the early Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus. If you were to admit that there are other plausible explanations for the Resurrection, then your primary argument for why people should believe your plausible belief over other plausible beliefs would rest upon the believability of miracles, which even you would recognize as very shaky ground.

Once again...Would you please list the source that states that the majority of NT scholars believe that the bodily Resurrection is the only plausible explanation for the early Christian belief in Jesus' Resurrection? That is your claim, Nick. Don't deny it. You have poo-poo'd any possible other explanation for this early Christian belief as being implausible. So back up your claim that the majority of NT scholars agree with you.

If you can't do that, admit that you are out on a limb on your own, or at best, sitting out on a limb with a small minority of scholars who agree with you.

[Apologiaphoenix]

"So let's see which is more probable. Scholars in the field who have studied the social context for their lives knowing what they're talking about, or you showing up and proving them all wrong?"

Would you please list the source that states that the majority of NT scholars believe that the bodily Resurrection is the only plausible explanation for the early Christian belief in Jesus' Resurrection? That is your claim, Nick. Don't deny it. You have poo-poo'd any possible other explanation for this early Christian belief as being implausible. So back up your claim that the majority of NT scholars agree with you.

Look again at what I said here. I said "Scholars in the field who have studied the social context for their lives knowing what they're talking about, or you proving them all wrong."

What's the response about? The social data of the NT world which you were making a point about.

I don't care what they believe about the resurrection. I care about the data that they present.

Somehow you got out of that a statement from me that the majority of NT scholars hold to bodily resurrection.

Only in your world does that make sense.

Meanwhile, is it my claim that the resurrection is the most plausible explanation?

Yep. Sure is. I have no problem with it.

You've yet to present a scenario that I think explains the data better. I just got done reading one writer's attempt to do so and someone who has to be fair read a lot more of the data than you have.

So go ahead. Give the better one. Really try to wrestle with the data.

[Gary]

Look again at what I said here. I said "Scholars in the field who have studied the social context for their lives knowing what they're talking about, or you proving them all wrong."

What's the response about? The social data of the NT world which you were making a point about.

I don't care what they believe about the resurrection. I care about the data that they present.

Somehow you got out of that a statement from me that the majority of NT scholars hold to bodily resurrection.

Only in your world does that make sense.

Meanwhile, is it my claim that the resurrection is the most plausible explanation?

Yep. Sure is. I have no problem with it.

You've yet to present a scenario that I think explains the data better. I just got done reading one writer's attempt to do so and someone who has to be fair read a lot more of the data than you have.

So go ahead. Give the better one. Really try to wrestle with the data.

"Meanwhile, is it my claim that the resurrection is the most plausible explanation? Yep. Sure is. I have no problem with it."

Nice dodge.

That is not what you inferred above. I have no issue with you stating that you believe that a miracle is the most plausible explanation for the early Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection. I disagree, but I can respect your position. But your statement above, and my many conversations with you, clearly indicate that you believe that the bodily resurrection is the ONLY plausible explanation for the early Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection. Stop the games, Nick. Stop the evasion. Do you or do you not believe that the bodily resurrection of Jesus, a miracle, is the ONLY plausible explanation for the early Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection?

[psstein]

As I think I've said many times, there's only one naturalistic explanation that I consider possible. Nick, I sent you an article on it a few weeks back.

And that hypothesis has to throw out the empty tomb as a historical fact.

[Gary]

As I think I've said many times, there's only one naturalistic explanation that I consider possible. Nick, I sent you an article on it a few weeks back.

And that hypothesis has to throw out the empty tomb as a historical fact.

Can you give me a source, Stein, which quotes the majority of NT scholars as holding to the view that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is the ONLY plausible explanation for the early Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus, as is held by Nick?

[Apologiaphoenix]

Nice way to not own up to your misreading.

By the way, no one dodges you because you're not a threat.

I have yet to see another explanation I think fits the evidence, which is what I am going by.

Do you have one?

Nope.

[Gary]

Nice way to not own up to your misreading.

By the way, no one dodges you because you're not a threat.

I have yet to see another explanation I think fits the evidence, which is what I am going by.

Do you have one?

Nope.

I'm not asking about YOUR opinion.

I am asking if the majority of scholars believe that there is only ONE plausible explanation for the early Christian belief in the Resurrection: a literal, bodily resurrection.

[shunyadragon]

Much of his argumentation relies on what he calls the principle of Judas's nose. The Bible never says that Judas has a nose, but it's fair to think that he did because all people we see for the most part have one and we should take the mundane ordinary explanation over something extraordinary. He gives the example that when you hear hoofbeats, you think horses and not zebras.

As far as proof, I do not believe there is any either way concerning the Resurrection. The reliance possible mundane ordinary explanations as explanations for the Resurrection is a good argument that cuts with Occam's razor, between the possibility of miraculous explanation versus a possible ordinary explanation.

This principle can work in many ways, but the problem is that too often Sandoval has assumed the physical similarities but has ignored the cultural dissimilarities. Sandoval writes not paying attention to the social world of the New Testament. Thus, arguments I favor relying on the honor and shame context of the New Testament world to defend the resurrection aren't even touched and when we get to his attacks on the resurrection instead of his defensive position, it gets worse.

I have a problem with the 'honor and shame,' because it has not been determined that the claim of this aspect of ANE culture is significantly different from any other culture.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I'm not asking about YOUR opinion.

I am asking if the majority of scholars believe that there is only ONE plausible explanation for the early Christian belief in the Resurrection: a literal, bodily resurrection.

No. Evangelical scholars for the most part do. Many, even Christian scholars, just don't say anything about the matter.

[Apologiaphoenix]

As far as proof, I do not believe there is any either way concerning the Resurrection. The reliance possible mundane ordinary explanations as explanations for the Resurrection is a good argument that cuts with Occam's razor, between the possibility of miraculous explanation versus a possible ordinary explanation.

The second sentence really does not make sense.

I have a problem with the 'honor and shame,' because it has not been determined that the claim of this aspect of ANE culture is significantly different from any other culture.

And what demonstration is lacked?

[shunyadragon]

The second sentence really does not make sense.

Rewrite

The reliance on possible mundane ordinary explanations for the Resurrection is a good argument that cuts with Occam's razor, between the possibility of miraculous explanation versus a possible ordinary explanation.

Unfortunately claims of miraculous events are subjective and anecdotal, and simply are not subject to proof either way.

And what demonstration is lacked?

IT just has not been demonstrated that there is a difference between ANE and other cultures concerning honor and shame.

Can you cite a source that makes a complete comparison of cultures and does not simply make a claim of uniqueness.

I believe the concept of 'shame and honor' are very human characteristics of human nature in all cultures.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Rewrite

The reliance on possible mundane ordinary explanations for the Resurrection is a good argument that cuts with Occam's razor, between the possibility of miraculous explanation versus a possible ordinary explanation.

Unfortunately claims of miraculous events are subjective and anecdotal, and simply are not subject to proof either way.

And why should I believe the last sentence of this? As for an explanation, if you have a better explanation of the data, feel free to give it.

IT just has not been demonstrated that there is a difference between ANE and other cultures concerning honor and shame.

Can you cite a source that makes a complete comparison of cultures and does not simply make a claim of uniqueness.

I believe the concept of 'shame and honor' are very human characteristics of human nature in all cultures.

There are a number of books in the field that do this. The 3D Gospel is one that lists fear-power, guilt-innocence, and honor-shame culture. The Handbook of Biblical Social Values lists a value and then explains how Americans particularly view it differently than Mediterraneans.