The Resurrection of Jesus

Con, thank you for the debate. It has been enjoyable and I have learned a few things for the next one. Historical Facts In R2, I presented three historical facts. These are held as true by a majority of scholars. In R3, I quoted a large number of these scholars who agree that there is a consensus on these matters. Many if not most of the scholars I quoted are hostile to my conclusions to this debate, yet they still agree on these minimal facts. The facts are: 1) Jesus died by crucifixion. 2) Shortly after Jesus' crucifixion, the disciples had experiences that they believed were of the risen Jesus. 3) Within a few years of Jesus' crucifixion, Paul had an experience which he believed to be of the risen Jesus and which led to his conversion. Sources for the authority quotes McIntyre: "The Uses of History in Theology" p 8 Ludemann: "The Resurrection of Christ" p 50, 47 Crossan: "The Historical Jesus" p 375, 332; "Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography" p 145; "In Search of Paul" p 8 Vermes: "The Passion" p 9 Fredriksen: "Jesus of Nazareth" p 8, 264 Ehrman: "The Historical Jesus" p 162; "Jesus Interrupted" p 177-178; "The New Testament" p 301 Sanders: "The Historical Figure of Jesus" p 280, 157; "Jesus and Judaism" p 11 Wedderburn: "Beyond Resurrection" p 13 Marxsen: "Jesus and Easter" p 86 Evans: "Authenticating the Activities of Jesus" p 12 Bultmann: "Jesus and the Word" p 124 Borg: "Jesus, A New Vision" p 67-71 Funk: "The Acts of Jesus" p 527 Twelftree: Mcknight's "The Face of New Testament Studies" p 206; "Jesus" p 258, 345 Meier: "A Marginal Jew" p 630 Theissen: "The Historical Jesus" p 512-513 Defense of appeal to authority To make the debate different than the usual, in my proofs, I used the accepted tactic of a proper appeal to authority. Con has continuously denied this as an accepted evidence. I agree that a consensus of scholars does not create fact. That was not my intention. My claim was that a majority of scholars, friend and foe, accept certain historical statements as fact. BUT, when a there is a majority agreement on a certain issue, from all the relevant sides, by the relevant experts, when in a debate, such an opinion is very valuable and needs serious attention to be negated. When pertaining to historical religious matters, there is probably no greater heterogeneity. According the "The Introduction to Critical Reasoning" p 118-119 and the "Introduction to Logic" p 333-334, such a tactic is properly used and is a strong form of argument when the authority figures are experts in the topic and when there is a strong consensus among the authority figures. One negative concerning the bias of the authority figures exists. This can be overruled when the authority figures come from all sides of the argument, yet still agree. I have done this concerning the experts I have quoted. I have used a proper appeal to authority in justifying three minimal facts. I have justified my use of this tactic as being accepted in argumentation. I have negated the effect of bias by using mostly experts who disagree with my hypothesis. Conclusion concerning the historical facts I have provided three facts concerning Jesus' fate. They are agreed upon by a majority of diverse experts. I have defended my use of a proper appeal to authority. Therefore, my accepting such propositions as fact is highly supported and bears much weight in this debate. Weighing the RH In R2, I presented several historical criteria upon which to judge hypotheses concerning Jesus' fate. They include plausibility, explanatory scope, explanatory power, and less ad hoc. Con agreed to these historical criteria. In R2 I also pointed out how the Resurrection Hypothesis passes all of these criteria. Con's only disagreement involves the supernatural and he has based his entire conclusion on this. My responses included: 1. Con admitted to a priori ruling out the supernatural. I quote from theskepticsguide. org: "Claims are not a prior dismissed because they are not currently explained by science. " 2. Plausibility as I explained is the degree of compatibility with our background knowledge pertaining to the situation. I gave some of the background knowledge pertaining to Jesus that is again accepted by a majority of scholars, and showed that the RH is plausible. 3. If one cannot bracket their worldview and biases, they cannot be sure of their conclusions. Con cannot set aside his presupposed prejudice against the supernatural. He presupposes its falsity. In my argument I have not presupposed the supernatural. 4. However, let's assume we can allow our biases to make a priori judgments as Con did. A large percentage of the experts concerning Jesus fate believe in the supernatural. Therefore, given their biases, part of their background knowledge would include the possibility of the supernatural, thus making the RH very plausible. I did not allow biases and presuppositions in this argument concerning the historical experts. Neither should Con if he has the goal of being as objective as one can. 5. Con agreed to using the historical criteria presented in R2. None of those included the supernatural. He has gone outside the agreed upon parameters. 6. 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. Conclusion concerning weighing the RH Only if one has presupposed a priori biases and prejudices can one argue that the RH does not fulfill the agreed upon historical criteria. I have shown that to be objective one must try to set aside all presuppositions. An open mind, with a bracketed world-view, understands that the RH passes on all accounts and therefore passes as a likely hypothesis. Conclusion - Conclusion I presented three minimal facts concerning Jesus' fate. Using an appeal to authority properly, I supported my claim that these are considered facts by a majority of diverse scholars. I then presented a number of historical criteria in which to assess a hypothesis concerning Jesus' fate. The Resurrection Hypothesis accounted for the three facts and passed the historical criteria. VOTE PRO! Moreover, in accepting the debate, according to R1, Con agreed to bear the burden of support in proving that Jesus' resurrection is not the best hypothesis or that it did not happen. Con has since only tried to refute my argument. In order to prove the best hypothesis, one must compare it with another. He acknowledged he has not provided another hypothesis. Neither did he give any support to the idea that the resurrection did not happen. Con failed to bear his burden which was agreed upon. By default, he lost the debate.