The Resurrection of Jesus

Con, thanks for your response and continuation of this debate.Historical Facts 1) My original claim was that the majority of scholars and historians agree that the three facts are historical truths. 2) I backed up my claim with numerous quotes by scholars who say the same thing. Many of these are hostile to my argument, but still agree to the historicity of these three facts. 3) What I have done is considered a proper appeal to authority and is accepted in argumentation and is considered as a type of proof for a claim. The majority of scholars accept these three claims as historical facts. For the sake of this argument, I will as well. The next question is, using the historical criteria for weighing a hypothesis, what hypothesis best accounts for these facts? Con asked how we know whether Jesus actually died, or if he could have been in a coma? 1) The first fact agreed upon by the majority of scholars friend and foe is that Jesus did in fact die by crucifixion. Con may disagree, but he is going against the scholarly consensus and therefore does not hold the same weight as my argument. Con asked how we know what the disciples or what Paul experienced? 1) We do not need to know what it was exactly that the disciples experienced. The second fact agreed upon by the majority of scholars friend and foe is that the disciples had an experience which they believed to have been of the risen Jesus. Whether it was or not is not a part of my argument. An alternative hypothesis to the RH must take into account the fact that they had this experience. This is also true of Paul's experience. Con claimed there are inconsistencies in the gospel accounts of the appearances to the disciples. 1) This is a red herring. I said nothing about the gospel accounts. The fact I presented is that the majority of scholars believe the disciples had such an experience. Con said we cannot go just off the scholars word. 1) I have shown above that it is a proper debate technique and can be used as a proof when the scholars are properly experts and there is a majority. One (such as Con) may still disagree, but they disagree with scholarly consensus and therefore Con's argument does not hold the same weight in a debate as does the consensus. Weighing the RH Plausibility and ad hocness. 1) Con claims that he can look at this argument from outside the historian's perspective and therefore can rule out the supernatural. A) I have not presupposed the supernatural but have followed the argument to where it leads. I have therefore had an open mind. B) Con has a priori ruled out the supernatural and thus does not have an open mind because of his bias. This undermines carefully applied method, which is C) below. C) Con agreed to using the historical criteria for weighing hypotheses. Ruling out a priori the supernatural was not one of the agreed upon historical criteria. D) A historian examines the data surrounding a claimed historical event. That event may be, such as in the case of the resurrection, a miracle type of event. If that miracle event fulfills the agreed upon historical criteria, it can be warranted as historical, even if it leads to a supernatural hypothesis. E) To rule that the evidence cannot point towards a supernatural event because that would be implausible or ad hoc is to allow one's presupposed biases to cloud one's judgment. Only if one has presupposed a priori biases and prejudices can one argue that the RH does not fulfill the agreed upon historical criteria. An open mind, with a bracketed world-view, understands that the RH passes on all accounts and therefore passes as a likely hypothesis. Con has yet to give an alternative hypothesis that would explain the consensus facts and the agreed upon historical criteria. By default, the RH so far leads.