Jesus Was Probably Resurrected By God

-Reliability of the Gospels- Con accuses me of presupposing the complete reliability of all 4 Gospels and thereby demands justification for this position. The problem is that I do not claim, nor do my arguments imply the reliability of the Gospels. Rather, I legitimately approach the Gospels as nothing more than ancient manuscripts, before successfully establishing 4 specific facts about Jesus without assuming the Gospels' general reliability (which is perfectly consistent with the Bart Ehrman quote Con cites). I do this by testing the proposed facts against the "Indicators of Authenticity" used in contemporary scholarship to determine the historicity of ancient events. As Dr. Craig explains, these Indicators are "statements about the effect of certain types of evidence upon the probability of various sayings or events in Jesus' life. For some saying or event S and evidence of a certain type E, the criteria would state that, all things being equal, the probability of S given E is greater than the probability of S on our background knowledge alone. So, for example, all else being equal, the probability of some event or saying is greater given its multiple attestation than it would have been without it. What are some of the factors that might serve the role of E in increasing the probability of some saying or event S? The following are some of the most important: (1) Historical congruence: S fits in with known historical facts concerning the context in which S is said to have occurred. (2) Independent, early attestation: S appears in multiple sources which are near to the time at which S is alleged to have occurred and which depend neither upon each other nor a common source. (3) Embarrassment: S is awkward or counter-productive for the persons who serve as the source of information for S. (4) Dissimilarity: S is unlike antecedent Jewish thought-forms and/or unlike subsequent Christian thought-forms. (5) Semitisms: traces in the narrative of Aramaic or Hebrew linguistic forms. (6) Coherence: S is consistent with already established facts about Jesus." All of the facts I have presented in favor of the resolution display most (if not all) of these Indicators of Authenticity (notice that these Indicators aim at stating sufficient, not necessary, conditions of historicity). Thus we can be confident in the historicity of Facts#1-4 without appealing to the general reliability of the Gospels. -Notice, though, that Con cites The Book of Thomas the Contender for support, a Gnostic work likely composed in the first half of the third century (well after the Gospels). The present Coptic version was likely translated from the Greek. According to The Claremont Coptic Encyclopedia,the existence of the text is otherwise unattested in antiquity. The general (much less "complete") reliability of the Gospels isn"t necessary to my case. As such, our readers may disregard this objection. -Resolution is the Best Explanation of the Facts- Con's ironic indifference to the Facts supporting the resolution is ill-conceived (He required facts when he framed the debate!). A successful case for the resolution will depend on defendable facts. Though I appreciate his concerns for my round-management, a thorough exploration of the facts was necessary in successfully establishing the resolution as the best explanation. I will attempt to cure Con of his sincere confusion by demonstrating what it means to be a "best explanation" when arguing an inference to the best explanation: In his book Justifying Historical Descriptions, historian C. B. McCullagh lists 6 tests which historians use in determining what is the best explanation for historical facts: Explanatory scope, explanatory power, plausibility, ad hoc-ness, accord with accepted beliefs, and superiority over rival hypotheses. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" passes all these tests: "1. It has great explanatory scope: it explains why the tomb was found empty, why the disciples saw post-mortem appearances of Jesus, and why the Christian faith came into being. 2. It has great explanatory power: it explains why the body of Jesus was gone, why people repeatedly saw Jesus alive despite his earlier public execution, and so forth. 3. It is plausible: given the historical context of Jesus" own unparalleled life and claims, the resurrection serves as divine confirmation of those radical claims. 4. It is not ad hoc or contrived: it requires only one additional hypothesis: that God exists. And even that needn"t be an additional hypothesis if one already believes that God exists." -Note that any attempts to "naturalistically" explain away the 4 Facts individually, requires the addition of MULTIPLE hypotheses beyond necessity. As our readers know, THIS action violates Occam"s razor. The resolution does not. Even if Con uncharitably mocks it. Our readers surely know that mockery is not an argument. "5. It is in accord with accepted beliefs. The hypothesis: "God raised Jesus from the dead" doesn"t in any way conflict with the accepted belief that people don't rise naturally from the dead. The Christian accepts that belief as wholeheartedly as he accepts the hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead. 6. It far outstrips any of its rival hypotheses in meeting conditions 1-5. [V]arious alternative explanations of the facts have been offered, for example, the conspiracy hypothesis, the apparent death hypothesis, the hallucination hypothesis, and so forth. Such hypotheses have been almost universally rejected by contemporary scholarship. None of these naturalistic hypotheses succeeds in meeting the conditions as well as the resurrection hypothesis." The only way to avoid the resolution "God probably raised Jesus from the dead" as the best explanation is to harbor an unjustified naturalistic pre-supposition, as is implied by Con when he doubles-down on the refuted objection; Some people falsely or mistakenly claim to see dead people alive, therefore the people who claimed they saw Jesus alive were either lying or mistaken. If the resolution is even possible, then the resolution is the more probable explanation for reports of Jesus being seen alive, given the corroborating evidence, namely the other 3 Facts (We can be sure that Elvis and 2pac are still in their graves). This is unless, of course, Con wishes to beg the question and assert that God does not exist. -Note that even if I have the burden of proof, simply making unsupported assertions is not a legitimate method of undermining my arguments. Wherever Con makes an assertion or presents a positive claim, he burdens himself with the responsibility of justifying said claim. It is now clear how an explanation must function if it is to qualify as a "best explanation." If Con rests his hopes on "The Twin Theory" as the best explanation, he might be forced to argue that "Jesus of Nazareth had an unknown, identical twin brother, who was separated from him as an infant and grew up independently, but who came back to Jerusalem at the time of the crucifixion, stole Jesus' body out of the tomb, and presented himself to the disciples, who mistakenly inferred that Jesus was risen from the dead!" Of course, if Con presented such a radical assertion, he would have to demonstrate why this is more probable than the resolution, without presupposing the non-existence of God. -Conclusion- Con has conceded the historicity of Facts#1 & 2. Additionally Con has failed to undermine Jesus' post-mortem appearances (Fact#3). The Fact of Jesus' followers coming to truly believe in the resurrection (Fact#4), is indisputable. Therefore, any adequate explanation must account for all 4 firmly established Facts, as I have demonstrated. The resolution "God probably raised Jesus from the dead" is the best explanation of these Facts. Therefore, the resolution has been irrefutably established. Source: www.reasonablefaith.org/the-resurrection-of-jesus