Resurrection, hallucinations or lies?

[leroy]

Resurrection, hallucinations or lies?
Just following from this conversation that whent out of the original topic

http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=15478&start=520

leroy wrote:
There are witnesses of people who saw Jesus (or what they thought to be Jesus) after his dead, this is a historical fact

Bango Skank wrote:
Saw or thought to saw? There is a big difference.

I was just establishing the historical fact that some of the early followers of Christ “saw something” that was interpreted as the risen Jesus …….do you concede this historical fact?

eroy wrote:
We are talking about unambiguous experiences where people touched Jesus, ate with him, talked to him etc.

This is very different form watching a distant and unclear light in the sky, and interpreting it as a UFO

Bango Skank wrote:
We also have people who claim to have been abducted by aliens and later let go.

No testimony of Alien adduction is analogous to what happened 2000 years ago, thee testimonies are clearly lies or hallucinations (depending on the specific case)

Bango Skank wrote:
EDIT: And all those suicide bombers who have claimed of having religious experiences

Yes but they didn’t die in the name of a lie that they themselves invented, they died in the name of something that they believed was true, ether because they had an experience or because they where brainwashed.
The pint is:

To say that people like Peter, John, Paul, James etc. invented a promoted the lie of the resurrection would implied that they abandoned their families and comfortable live style just to be persecuted, treated as criminals and die as martyrs in the name a of a lie that they themselves invented. This if true would be an extraordinary and unique event.

Or to say that all of these early Christians had the same clear and unambiguous hallucinations would also be an extraordinary and unique event.

So it doesn’t matter if you believe in the resurrection, hallucinations, or in lies you are committed to grant that an extraordinary and unique event occurred.

Bango Skank wrote:
Religious people tend to dismiss the so called miracles if they happen outside their religion / sect. Talking about extreme bias...

That is true, if you show an example of a Muslim miracle analogous (in terms of evidence, explanatory power and explanatory scope) to the resurrection I would have to accept that such a miracle probably did occurred.

Bango Skank wrote:
Btw, we don't know what happened to the 12 disciples after Jesus death, so it cannot be said that they were willing to die. Those death stories are much later inventio

ns

We know (from external sources) that at least some of the early Christians died as martyrs

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Resurrection, hallucinations or lies?

Perhaps neither.

There are witnesses of people who saw Jesus (or what they thought to be Jesus) after his dead, this is a historical fact

No, there aren't (present time). If there were any they would all be dead by now (even if they weren't there would be other cans of worms, but lets not go that way).
Really the only thing that you have to go about "there being witnesses" is hear say, you would have to trust that the bible is not a work a of fiction (which I do believe it is), just to establish that the people claiming to be witnesses even existed, let alone establish that the claims made by the witness weren't themselves in turn not fabrications, much less establish that what they saw was actually what happened as a matter of fact.
You can not even establish Jesus as an historical figure, much less the witnesses, much less the claims being true.
Pretty much any claim that comes after it is a non sequitur. Nothing more than speculation at best.

We are talking about unambiguous experiences where people touched Jesus, ate with him, talked to him etc.

People who may not even exist.

No testimony of Alien adduction is analogous to what happened 2000 years ago,

Of course not. Because in the case of the Alien abduction testimonies, the witnesses at least are real and you can talk to them.

thee testimonies are clearly lies or hallucinations (depending on the specific case)

Even if, you could establish that the witness of Jesus did exist, how then could you make the judgement that their testimonies weren't "lies or hallucinations (depending on the specific case)"? What standard do you use to make your judgement consistent?

Yes but they didn’t die in the name of a lie that they themselves invented,

You don't know they even existed. There were indeed people who died due to their beliefs, who we know existed, but they were no witnesses. And they didn't know them any better than you do now.
People died for allot things, that doesn't make them real. Ironically, there are no shortage of modern examples of this, where people throw away their cancer medicine in favor of praying away the illness, dying as a consequence. Just because they believed that prayer and not medicine would cure them to the point that they were willing to risk their lives (and died they did) it doesn't make it any more real.

they died in the name of something that they believed was true,

Yes, as so did many others, but was it really true?

To say that people like Peter, John, Paul, James etc. invented a promoted the lie of the resurrection would implied that they abandoned their families and comfortable live style just to be persecuted, treated as criminals and die as martyrs in the name a of a lie that they themselves invented. This if true would be an extraordinary and unique event.

There is a false dichotomy here. The fact that they were persecuted and killed is incidental. I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't get up in the morning and think to themselves "humm.. How can I get killed today?". I'm not saying that they did invented the story (other alternatives are possible). But this doesn't prevent the possibility of them having willingly made up a lie for their own benefit thinking that they would be able to get away with it, without any ill consequences (and then incidentally being caught). Which I'm pretty sure is a very reasonable mind state.

Or to say that all of these early Christians had the same clear and unambiguous hallucinations would also be an extraordinary and unique event.

Not really, given that they knew each other, frequented the same circles, performed the same rituals, were fed the same set of beliefs, within the same cultural environment. Actually, it wouldn't be that extraordinary.
This in itself is also not an argument, as the counter-example of alien abduction, that you were so quick to dismiss, people report very similar experiences.
The counter example of alien abductions are good, not because they are real, but because we know precisely that they are bonkers, and that we are not in disagreement about it being bullshit. What we are trying to point out is, if arguments of this type are clearly not sufficient for you to believe in Aliens, they shouldn't be sufficient either to establish the veracity of the story of Jesus. To do otherwise would be a clear double standard, i.e. hypocrisy in defense of a preferred belief rather than trying to establish the truth.

 

[Visaki]

Resurrection, hallucinations or lies?
Just following from this conversation that whent out of the original topic

http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=15478&start=520

leroy wrote:
There are witnesses of people who saw Jesus (or what they thought to be Jesus) after his dead, this is a historical fact

Bango Skank wrote:
Saw or thought to saw? There is a big difference.

I was just establishing the historical fact that some of the early followers of Christ “saw something” that was interpreted as the risen Jesus …….do you concede this historical fact?

Nope.

I do concede the fact that records written later tell this story.

 

[thenexttodie]

One thing which is interesting about Judeo-Christianity and the Bible is that it does not proport itself to be based on revelation given to 1 single person. The Bible talks about God revealing Himself to thousands of people at one time.

 

[thenexttodie]

I do concede the fact that records written later tell this story.

What about the old testement?

 

[Visaki]

I do concede the fact that records written later tell this story.

What about the old testement?

As far as I know, not being a biblical scholar even in the broadest sense, the Old Testament doesn't talk about the resurrection of the messiah. Feel free to correct me on this however if I'm wrong.

 

[thenexttodie]

As far as I know, not being a biblical scholar even in the broadest sense, the Old Testament doesn't talk about the resurrection of the messiah. Feel free to correct me on this however if I'm wrong.

There are a couple places in the old testement which refer to a resurrection but are not specific to the messiah. We know that the Jews did believe in the resurrection of the dead and the idea of an eternal spirit, before the Messaih was born. In fact there was also a certain jewish sect who did not believe in the resurection of the dead. Thex were called the Saducees. They were the exception to the rule.

 

[leroy]

You can not even establish Jesus as an historical figure, much less the witnesses, much less the claims being true.
Pretty much any claim that comes after it is a non sequitur. Nothing more than speculation at best.

People who may not even exist.

Nope.

I do concede the fact that records written later tell this story.

Both of you are taking very radical position, that almost no scholar holds, the existence of Jesus and his followers can be granted as historically certain, because multiple independent sources confirm the existence of these individuals.

quote from , Gerd Ludemann(an atheist scholar)
"It may be as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.

So under what basis do you affirm that this atheist scholar is wrong?


Edit * Gerd Ludemann

 

[Bango Skank]

I was just establishing the historical fact that some of the early followers of Christ “saw something” that was interpreted as the risen Jesus …….do you concede this historical fact?

Maybe they saw, it's not uncommon that people thought to saw their dead relatives or friends. I have experienced that myself.

No testimony of Alien adduction is analogous to what happened 2000 years ago, thee testimonies are clearly lies or hallucinations (depending on the specific case)

By analogous you mean "in terms of evidence, explanatory power and explanatory scope"?

I think they are better in that case than resurrection, because we have interviews and logs from the persons themselves, unlike hearsay and at best second hand information that we have with resurrection.

Yes but they didn’t die in the name of a lie that they themselves invented, they died in the name of something that they believed was true, ether because they had an experience or because they where brainwashed.

Well you brought up the lying part, i'm also open to those possibilities.

To say that people like Peter, John, Paul, James etc. invented a promoted the lie of the resurrection would implied that they abandoned their families and comfortable live style just to be persecuted, treated as criminals and die as martyrs in the name a of a lie that they themselves invented. This if true would be an extraordinary and unique event.

Have you read the book "When Prophecy Fails"? Also what you said a bit earlier can be applied to Peter, John, Paul, James etc. too.

Or to say that all of these early Christians had the same clear and unambiguous hallucinations would also be an extraordinary and unique event.

So it doesn’t matter if you believe in the resurrection, hallucinations, or in lies you are committed to grant that an extraordinary and unique event occurred.

Yup, thus resurrection is not a historical fact for reasons i have already told before.

That is true, if you show an example of a Muslim miracle analogous (in terms of evidence, explanatory power and explanatory scope) to the resurrection I would have to accept that such a miracle probably did occurred.

Ok, so no modern day miracles then, i would need to find oldest possible example. Quran has a few miracle claims, like angels descending from Heaven at battle of Badr.

We know (from external sources) that at least some of the early Christians died as martyrs

That is a historical fact, but we don't know what happened to the twelve.

 

[Gnug215]

How come it has to be either hallucinations or lies?

Can you seriously not imagine other ways that myths and legends arise?


In the case of the Bible, you make it sound as if it's based on historical facts. As if the books in it, the gospels in particular, are a source onto themselves.
Sure, there might be facts involved, but not many of those are verified by other respected and verifiable sources. But the gospels aren't made by independent, scholarly outsiders, objectively chronicling the phenomenon of Jesus, which at the time was probably "just another cult leader".

Determining whether the experiences of the people in the gospels were either hallucinations or lies, one would first have to determine the accuracy and veracity of the actual accounts.

Just look at how hard it can be to determine the truth of a story today. You have different sources giving differing accounts. You have witnesses with varying observations. You have biases sneaking in. Facts omitted (for time or brevity, whatever. It doesn't need to be malicious.),

And that's just the news. Just look at what happens when ideology and personal beliefs enter the picture.

Take the moon landing conspiracy. It's obvious that we landed on the moon, but the conspiracy theorists have still managed to build up an entire narrative, significant in size, that deals - to varying degrees of success - with most angles of the "counter narrative".
And a thousand years from now, it's would be really hard to sift through ancient sources to try to determine what actually happened.

Something else worth mentioning is the case of Scientology founder, L. Ron Hubbard. He was clearly a mentally disturbed sci-fi author that just invented a new religion. I think most people would assume that he was just a fraud and a liar, but there is evidence that suggests he might actually have bought into his own invention. There are reports of him auditing himself and using E-meters late in life.
I suppose it's not surprising. It must be easier to just buy into nonsense - even if you know it's nonsense - than to live a total lie.

There are many ways that myths can appear.

Not all untruths are lies.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

People who may not even exist.

Both of you are taking very radical position, that almost no scholar holds, the existence of Jesus and his followers can be granted as historically certain, because multiple independent sources confirm the existence of these individuals.

True, it is not a generally agreed upon position among historians, but this matter is far from having a consensus and the reasoning behind, "because multiple independent sources confirm the existence of these individuals", is a gross exaggeration, one that I will address in more detail bellow. But for now, I will concede 100% that "followers of Jesus" in the general term did indeed exist, if for no other reason than they exist today, but that has no bearing on Jesus himself, it doesn't even get you as close as the 12.

So under what basis do you affirm that this atheist scholar is wrong?

That is a very good question. But before I answer that, let me clarify a couple of misconceptions.

1. Gary R. Habermas is not an atheist, quite the contrary, he is a christian apologist. He is not even an historian, he is a religious philosopher.
2. I need to clarify that my position is not that a person named Jesus who was killed by Pilates who had some sort of a following that spawned into what we know as Christianity most certainly did not exist, but rather the aforementioned person is likely a fabrication. It is a different degree of certainty, I don't have any evidence that such a person didn't exist, the same way I can't prove that any fictional character (like Bruce Wayne) definitively didn't exist (maybe Bruce Wayne was inspired by a real very rich dude from New York, who was very much into gadgets for self defense and stuff). What I'm saying is that you have no evidence that he existed either, and that it is far more likely that the stories that do exist are fiction, given that they are clearly biased, people had the opportunity and motive to do so, and to top it all off they are accounts in the same context as literal magic that contradict known historical facts that most certainly are fabrications. Even if you could prove that a person named Jesus, who was killed by Pilates, who spawned the religion of Christianity.. blah blah etc etc, then good for you, but the only thing you have is a person, you are still miles away from proving any account about them, much less any divinity claim.

So, that we got that cleared lets tackle your question, "[On] what basis do you affirm that this [...] scholar is wrong?".
First of all you are asking the wrong question, the question you should be asking is "On what basis do you affirm that this scholar is right?"
I couldn't care less that he is a scholar (philosopher, not an historian), he could have been the president, the pope, or even the most prestigious and accurate historian of all time. He is still a person making a claim, and he needs to back it up.
Everybody just assumes that because this is a very hot and ancient topic, that the matter has been established and closed beyond doubt centuries ago, when in fact no such thing has ever happened. This is a very common point brought up by historians who support the fictitious origin of the Jesus Myth.

The main "evidence" presented for the historicity of jesus, is 1 Tacitus, and 2 the Testimonium Flavianum (Josephus), none of them were born during the supposed events of the life of Jesus, and indeed the accounts are no earlier than 93AD (a whole 60 freaking years after the supposed Jesus death). Neither of them even referred to Jesus directly. Tacitus mentioned it in regards to Nero killing Christians and what Christians believed. And Josephus in regards to Pontius Pilates and the christian sect, an account that is so out of context and out of the style of the rest of the text, that is widely accepted by scholars to be a fabrication. (And I'm not even going to touch about the subject of actual contemporary historians, who should have been able to comment about Jesus existence, but who didn't.)
That is it, that is all it amounts to.

Sure, there are allot of text that were lost, allot of records about people destroyed, maybe there could have possibly existed at some point in time some other piece of evidence that would make matter more certain. But I mean, that is it? Is that all we have?
On the other hand, the only direct sources we have are the ones that comes from a religious sect (like many other religious sects that you contest must wrong if you are a christian), who had the motive and the opportunity to fabricate it (not to mention centuries of cultural monopoly, and authoritarian rule complemented with taught police complemented with leader worship, over a big chunk of modern European history) like many other religious sects (that you must concede it must have happened if you are a christian, but somehow make an exception for Christianity itself), even worse peppered with claims that are not only magical but that also contradict actual known history.

So you have this 2 points, which one is more likely? I personally go with the easy one, the one that grants no special exceptions.
Could I be wrong? Well certainly. Maybe tomorrow you would be able to find such evidence, and be able to present it to us so that we maybe convinced by it, and I will grant you the historicity of Jesus. But you would still be missing the point.
Even if you did that, all you have is a person, you are still miles away from any other person surrounding it, or any of their supposed claims, much less any actual mystical event. And certainly is not a statement that we must somehow give it to you without criticism, it is not an established matter.

But I will do you one better. I will even grant you for the sake of argument, the historicity of Jesus, all the disciples, and even the fact that they made those claims and knew jesus on a personal level. How do you know they were being truthful?
Let me do you one even better. I'm even going to grant you that they genuinely believed their own claims.
Shit, I'm feeling generous today, I will even give you Jesus was thought death and appeared very much alive after 3 days. How could you possibly infer that they couldn't have misinterpreted the events, and that the only possibility is "miracle", when even today people wake up scared in morgues after having being pronounced dead by a trained doctor?

We don't have to grant you any of this, and you can be sure we certainly won't if the matter is to ultimately convince us that we are wrong. But even if we did, you are still nowhere near where you need to be, and certainly "hallucination or lies" is far from being the only explanation for what we see today.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

After writing my previous reply I felt the need to add an extra addendum to it. Because I have seen this conversation take place too many times, just to get derailed into a pointless tangent, reason for that might be failure of the apologist in understanding the game being played here.
So to avoid confusion, I'm just going to explain it in terms that are less loaded, that have less emotional attachment than deep seated beliefs. Because if I believe people are able to understand the concepts in such terms and are willing to accept the analogy, then things might go much smoother.

Let's imagine a different situation, about an unnamed ancient city in 3 BCE. A port city, famous for trade, that dragged ships up and down river to load an unload their precious cargo, using this machine that is able to pull the boats without the need of any external power, no horse or cattle to pull it, no harnessing of the river to turn it, akin to a perpetual motion device.
Let's say that we have multiple independent contemporary historians describing it in very intricate detail, consistent with each other. We have depiction of the device, and even contemporary coins of the region printed with the image of such a wonderful device.
We know from physics that perpetual motion devices are impossible. Sorry "multiple independent contemporary historians whose only claim to privileged knowledge was to have been born a couple of millennia before I did", but you are wrong!
You did not have a perpetual motion device, maybe you just taught it worked like that because you never seen the water well inside, yeah I'm going to rather doubt if this machine wasn't fabled, maybe they were paying an homage to an ancient wonder of the world that they didn't understand, maybe they made it all up in order to appear more technologically advanced and boast some false sense of technological superiority to compete against rival cities. Whatever it was, there are other explanations for those accounts that are far more likely than you actually having a perpetual motion device.
And if you want me to believe that you had a perpetual motion device, you bet I'm going to demand a much higher standard of evidence. How about schematics on how the machine was put together? An engine?

Now instead consider this.
Imagine that instead of multiple independent contemporary accounts, we have just foot notes, written by people who were born half a century after the supposed machine had been completely destroyed in a fire (quite convenient), and he was not even talking directly about the machine, but about some dude who claimed to have seen it. Yet no contemporary historian mentions boats being dragged up or down river by this wondrous device, also no depictions of the device anywhere, or how it worked. Yes we might have that half faded coin minted in copper of dubious origin, and allot cultural references and stories about such a device, stories that contain details like the name of people who supposedly work with it (which happens very similar [Gregg to Dregg] to the name used in that account in that foot note).
Yeah, I mean seriously, do you expect me just based on that, to waste my time in pursuit of discovering "how to make that perpetual motion device so that we can solve humanities energy problems", despite everything we know about physics?

 

[leroy]

After writing my previous reply I felt the need to add an extra addendum to it. Because I have seen this conversation take place too many times, just to get derailed into a pointless tangent, reason for that might be failure of the apologist in understanding the game being played here.
So to avoid confusion, I'm just going to explain it in terms that are less loaded, that have less emotional attachment than deep seated beliefs. Because if I believe people are able to understand the concepts in such terms and are willing to accept the analogy, then things might go much smoother.

Let's imagine a different situation, about an unnamed ancient city in 3 BCE. A port city, famous for trade, that dragged ships up and down river to load an unload their precious cargo, using this machine that is able to pull the boats without the need of any external power, no horse or cattle to pull it, no harnessing of the river to turn it, akin to a perpetual motion device.
Let's say that we have multiple independent contemporary historians describing it in very intricate detail, consistent with each other. We have depiction of the device, and even contemporary coins of the region printed with the image of such a wonderful device.
We know from physics that perpetual motion devices are impossible. Sorry "multiple independent contemporary historians whose only claim to privileged knowledge was to have been born a couple of millennia before I did", but you are wrong!
You did not have a perpetual motion device, maybe you just taught it worked like that because you never seen the water well inside, yeah I'm going to rather doubt if this machine wasn't fabled, maybe they were paying an homage to an ancient wonder of the world that they didn't understand, maybe they made it all up in order to appear more technologically advanced and boast some false sense of technological superiority to compete against rival cities. Whatever it was, there are other explanations for those accounts that are far more likely than you actually having a perpetual motion device.
And if you want me to believe that you had a perpetual motion device, you bet I'm going to demand a much higher standard of evidence. How about schematics on how the machine was put together? An engine?

Now instead consider this.
Imagine that instead of multiple independent contemporary accounts, we have just foot notes, written by people who were born half a century after the supposed machine had been completely destroyed in a fire (quite convenient), and he was not even talking directly about the machine, but about some dude who claimed to have seen it. Yet no contemporary historian mentions boats being dragged up or down river by this wondrous device, also no depictions of the device anywhere, or how it worked. Yes we might have that half faded coin minted in copper of dubious origin, and allot cultural references and stories about such a device, stories that contain details like the name of people who supposedly work with it (which happens very similar [Gregg to Dregg] to the name used in that account in that foot note).
Yeah, I mean seriously, do you expect me just based on that, to waste my time in pursuit of discovering "how to make that perpetual motion device so that we can solve humanities energy problems", despite everything we know about physics?

I understand your point and your analogy, and I think that conclusions depend largely on how open are you for the possibility of a miracle. Obviously if you start with the assumption that miracles are impossible (or extremely unlikely) then no amount of ancient texts will ever convince you that such an event took place.

But if you grant that the existence of God is at least possible then miracles and resurrections wouldn’t seem very unlikely to happen. If you have multiple independent sources that mention a miracle, and if this miracle has a significant amount of explanatory power and explanatory scope, then it would seem obvious that the miracle took place.

To be honest I haven’t seen any justification for why we shouldn’t grant that the existence of God is at least possible (even an agnostic would grant this assumption)



You analogy on a perpetual motion device, fails to be a good analogy for 2 reasons

1 context: Jesus was an individual who claimed to be “divine” and performed what others interpreted as miracles, the resurrection served as confirmation of such claims

2 It seems much more easier to fake a perpetual motion device than a resurrection, one can easily make a machine that looks (superficially) like a perpetual motion device, but how can someone fake a resurrection? If the alleged “risen Jesus” was just a guy that looked like Jesus, then at least his family, friends and disciples would have known that the “Jesus” is Fake.

However in your hypothetical example, it would be considered as historical certain that there was a machine that was interpreted to be a perpetual motion device. So by the same logic I guess we can say that it is historically certain that “something” that was interpreted as a resurrection happened.

 

[leroy]

How come it has to be either hallucinations or lies?

Can you seriously not imagine other ways that myths and legends arise?


In the case of the Bible, you make it sound as if it's based on historical facts. As if the books in it, the gospels in particular, are a source onto themselves.
Sure, there might be facts involved, but not many of those are verified by other respected and verifiable sources. But the gospels aren't made by independent, scholarly outsiders, objectively chronicling the phenomenon of Jesus, which at the time was probably "just another cult leader".

Determining whether the experiences of the people in the gospels were either hallucinations or lies, one would first have to determine the accuracy and veracity of the actual accounts.

Just look at how hard it can be to determine the truth of a story today. You have different sources giving differing accounts. You have witnesses with varying observations. You have biases sneaking in. Facts omitted (for time or brevity, whatever. It doesn't need to be malicious.),

And that's just the news. Just look at what happens when ideology and personal beliefs enter the picture.

Take the moon landing conspiracy. It's obvious that we landed on the moon, but the conspiracy theorists have still managed to build up an entire narrative, significant in size, that deals - to varying degrees of success - with most angles of the "counter narrative".
And a thousand years from now, it's would be really hard to sift through ancient sources to try to determine what actually happened.

Something else worth mentioning is the case of Scientology founder, L. Ron Hubbard. He was clearly a mentally disturbed sci-fi author that just invented a new religion. I think most people would assume that he was just a fraud and a liar, but there is evidence that suggests he might actually have bought into his own invention. There are reports of him auditing himself and using E-meters late in life.
I suppose it's not surprising. It must be easier to just buy into nonsense - even if you know it's nonsense - than to live a total lie.

There are many ways that myths can appear.

Not all untruths are lies.

The event (resurrection) was described in multiple independent sources that where written within 1 or 2 generations after the events, and the sources where written by people who knew Jesus and/or his disciples and familiars; any historical event loaded with this type of evidence is considered a historical fact.

If you don’t like “miracles” at the very least you should grant that something that was interpreted as a resurrection did occurred 2,000 years ago. I woudl be arbitrary to deny this fact.

How do you know that Alexander the Great was born in Macedonia? You certainly don’t have don’t have as much historical evidence for this event as you do for the resurrection (or the thing that was interpreted as a resurrection) so why would you affirm 1 and deny the other?

To be clear I am not asking you to grant that a resurrection took place, you only have to grant that something that was interpreted as a resurrection took place

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

and I think that conclusions depend largely on how open are you for the possibility of a miracle.

Would the conclusion need to largely depend on how open are you to free energy?
No, you don't get it. I don't have to be open to anything, is a statement more true just because you believe in it?

Obviously if you start with the assumption that miracles are impossible (or extremely unlikely) then no amount of ancient texts will ever convince you that such an event took place.

Why should it? Do people who wrote ancient texts, in era predating modern science, know more about how reality works than we do today?
People in ancient times, are just people, just regular old people, they had no special privileged access to knowledge. In fact quite the opposite is true, we are privilege because we have access to all the insights provided by technological and scientific advancements util today, they didn't had that, the more to the past you go, the less likely will their descriptions about the world be accurate.
But now that you mentioned it, miracles should by their definition not be regular events that would happen anyway, it would need to by nature outside of the laws of physics, at least the law of conservation of energy would need to be violated. Not unlike a perpetual motion device (except a perpetual motion device doesn't call for conscious entities outside of the universe, and thus far more likely).
And I think you would have to agree that it is hard to justify miracles given that they have never been rigorously observed by anyone, and forget about scientific evidence as it would require to violate the laws of physics. And I think you have grossly mislabeled in which category miracles would go.
On the other hand, things that look like miracles happens all the time.

But if you grant that the existence of God is at least possible then miracles and resurrections wouldn’t seem very unlikely to happen.

If you grant that a perpetual motion device is at least possible, then free energy wouldn't seem unlikely to happen.
If they were unlikely or not with a "God", that would depend on the "God" now wouldn't it. That would need to be kind of a given to you, since you clearly believe in a God, yet, you don't see resurrections happen all the time.
In any case your logic is all backwards. "God" is what you are trying to prove with the resurrections, not the other way around. And the fact that there is a debate at all about its existence should tell you everything there is to know about it. Have you ever taught of that?

If you have multiple independent sources that mention a miracle, and if this miracle has a significant amount of explanatory power and explanatory scope, then it would seem obvious that the miracle took place.

If you have multiple independent sources that mention [alien abduction], and if this [alien abduction] has a significant amount of explanatory power and explanatory scope, then it would seem obvious that the [alien abduction] took place.

Bare in mind that, that a guy that believes in alien abduction wouldn't be able to understand what I am doing here.
And this is why I think it is important to bring the topic away from the religious attachments that you have to it, if you want to ever have a chance at understanding what is going on.
Because this is how cognitive bias works, it will make you think you have the best argument in the world, just because it supports your cherished ideas, but as soon as you try to apply it to something else, they are exposed for being as inappropriate as they actually are.
You might find the "alien abduction guy" arguments to be ridiculous, but to us, you are like the guy who believes in alien abductions. And it is quote hard for us to explain to why we find it ridiculous, the same way you will find it hard to explain to a guy who believes in alien abductions why they are wrong.
That is why I feel that most conversations about religion rarely go anywhere, it is because people don't understand that they can't understand because they are to emotionally attached to their ideas.
Let's try after this post, to have a pure conversation about God, miracles, religion, etc, without ever mentioning any of those things.

To be honest I haven’t seen any justification for why we shouldn’t grant that the existence of God is at least possible (even an agnostic would grant this assumption)

To be honest I haven’t seen any justification for why we shouldn’t grant that the existence of perpetual motion is at least possible (even a laymen would grant this assumption)

You analogy on a perpetual motion device, fails to be a good analogy for 2 reasons

No it doesn't.

1 context: Jesus was an individual who claimed to be “divine” and performed what others interpreted as miracles, the resurrection served as confirmation of such claims

1 context: Atlantis device was a device claimed to be “perpetual” and performed what others interpreted energy out of nowhere, the power dragging of the ships over the river served as confirmation of such claims

2 It seems much more easier to fake a perpetual motion device than a resurrection, one can easily make a machine that looks (superficially) like a perpetual motion device, but how can someone fake a resurrection? If the alleged “risen Jesus” was just a guy that looked like Jesus, then at least his family, friends and disciples would have known that the “Jesus” is Fake.

Are you serious? You are saying that it is harder to fake a resurrection based on what exactly? And even if I granted you it was harder (which isn't), it couldn't have been faked why? And why are we even assuming that it needed to be faked as in something needed to have happened for some one to see in the first place?
And let's even entertain your story that if it was faked, that at least his family would have know about it. Well, so what? You are not his family, you didn't get their version of the story. No to mention that I don't even have to grant you that any of the characters existed.
You know what is easiest way to fake an event? Is having no event happen at all. This is how easy it is to "fake" a resurrection. "I Died 2 days ago and today I have resurrected. And I have a couple of mates that can vouch for me." I will even do you one better, you can actually talk to me, proving you that I am very much alive and real. Are you willing to worship me now?

2 It seems much more easier to fake a resurrection than a perpetual motion device, one can easily make a body that looks (superficially) like alive, but how can someone fake infinite energy? If the alleged “perpetual motion device” was just a machine powered by the river, then at least the workers, the builders of the device would have known that the “perpetual motion” is Fake.

2 It seems much more easier to fake a resurrection than alien abduction, one can easily make a body that looks (superficially) like alive, but how can someone fake being beamed up into the freaking sky? If the alleged “abduction” was just a guy being hoisted from an helicopter with bright light, then at least the pilot, the air traffic control would have known that the “alien abduction” is Fake.

However in your hypothetical example, it would be considered as historical certain that there was a machine that was interpreted to be a perpetual motion device. So by the same logic I guess we can say that it is historically certain that “something” that was interpreted as a resurrection happened.

No, I wouldn't consider that the machine even existed in the first place.
Cases like that of Troy, that was believed to not have been a real place, until we found out we were wrong. Or the case of Atlantis.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

The machine (perpetual motion) was described in multiple independent sources that where written within 1 or 2 generations after the events [which for some reason, was not written by people who were alive to see, which is what you would normally expect, but I'm going to ignore that], and the sources where written by people who knew the machine and/or sailors and workers of the machine [which in itself is a claim that requires evidence, but lets forget about that for a moment]; any historical event loaded with this type of evidence is considered a historical fact.

If you don’t like “infinite energy” at the very least you should grant that something that was interpreted as a perpetual motion device did occurred 2,000 years ago. I woud be arbitrary to deny this fact.

How do you know that Alexander the Great was born in Macedonia? You certainly don’t have as much historical evidence for this event as you do for the dragging of ships [even tough this claim is actually false] (or the thing that was interpreted as a perpetual motion) so why would you affirm 1 and deny the other?

To be clear I am not asking you to grant that a free energy took place, you only have to grant that something that was interpreted as a free energy took place

 

[Laurens]

Hallucination or lies is a false dichotomy.

I'd say the resurrection is a myth. I won't lay out the entire argument in this thread, but I would recommend looking into Richard Carrier's arguments. He states that 1st Century Jews needed a theological solution to the Roman control of their temple---which was central to their religion at the time. The idea was that Yeshua descended into the firmament to be executed by Satan, and then rose again after three days, as a final sacrifice to remove the need for regular sacrifice at the temple. The assention of Isaiah attests to this. As do the genuine Pauline Epistles which only refer to Christ being revealed in scripture and revelation rather than as an actual historical person. Later on, probably as an attempt of one sect to assert dominance Christ was described as a historical figure.

I certainly do not do Carrier's arguments justice here. But I find his case convincing, and so far as I am aware it has not been refuted extensively.

TLDR the resurrection is quite possibly a myth that evolved over time

Sent from my LG-H840 using Tapatalk

 

[leroy]

The machine (perpetual motion) was described in multiple independent sources that where written within 1 or 2 generations after the events [which for some reason, was not written by people who were alive to see, which is what you would normally expect, but I'm going to ignore that], and the sources where written by people who knew the machine and/or sailors and workers of the machine [which in itself is a claim that requires evidence, but lets forget about that for a moment]; any historical event loaded with this type of evidence is considered a historical fact.

If you don’t like “infinite energy” at the very least you should grant that something that was interpreted as a perpetual motion device did occurred 2,000 years ago. I woud be arbitrary to deny this fact.

How do you know that Alexander the Great was born in Macedonia? You certainly don’t have as much historical evidence for this event as you do for the dragging of ships [even tough this claim is actually false] (or the thing that was interpreted as a perpetual motion) so why would you affirm 1 and deny the other?

To be clear I am not asking you to grant that a free energy took place, you only have to grant that something that was interpreted as a free energy took place

As I said before, in that particular hypothetical example I would grant that something that was interpreted as a “free energy device” existed.

And let's even entertain your story that if it was faked, that at least his family would have know about it. Well, so what? You are not his family, you didn't get their version of the story. No to mention that I don't even have to grant you that any of the characters existed.

It is a historical fact, accepted by the majority of scholars that his family and his close disciples “saw something” that was interpreted as a resurrection. If it was a fake Jesus (say a man that looked like Jesus) they would have known that he is not Jesus.

To me in seems obvious (correct me if I am wrong) that no amount of historical evidence will ever convince you that a miracle took place, at most we can agree that something unusual happened 2,000 years ago.

Given these historical facts that are widely accepted by the majority of historians:
- Jesus died in a cross and was buried
- The tomb was found empty
- At least some of the early Christians saw something that was interpreted by them as a resurrection
- At least some early Christians honestly and sincerely believed (on the basis of their experience) in the resurrection and where willing to die for that believe.

If you grant these uncontroversial historical facts, then no matter how you explain them (lies, hallucinations, true miracles, fake Jesus etc.) something extraordinary and without precedent did happen

Correct me if I am wrong, can you explain this facts, without appealing to an extraordinary hypothesis? how do you explain these facts?

 

[leroy]

Hallucination or lies is a false dichotomy.

I'd say the resurrection is a myth. I won't lay out the entire argument in this thread, but I would recommend looking into Richard Carrier's arguments. He states that 1st Century Jews needed a theological solution to the Roman control of their temple---

So basically the “theory” is that Peter, James, Paul, John etc. decided to invent their own myth about a guy named Jesus who resurrected, and then they somehow fought and died in the name of this myth that they themselves invented?

People invent myths all the time and people fight and die in the mane of myths all the time, but nobody fights and die as a martyr, in the name of a myth that they themselves invented.

So confirming my point above. If this is what happened 2,000 years ago then something extraordinary and unprecedented occurred
Not to mention that according to the gospels Jesus was pacifist, and even encouraged people to pay their taxes to the Romans.
So if the goal was to invent a myth to free people from the roman empire, Jesus was certainly not the type of character that someone would have invented.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

As I said before, in that particular hypothetical example I would grant that something that was interpreted as a “free energy device” existed.

Why? I would have never granted that the device even existed. The same way we don't grant the existence of Atlantis, even tough we have the accounts of Plato.

Correct me if I am wrong, can you explain this facts, without appealing to an extraordinary hypothesis? how do you explain these facts?

That is easy, this is how:

It is a historical fact

It is not.

accepted by the majority of scholars

Name me one, then show me the evidence they have for that.

that his family and his close disciples

They are likely fictitious characters.

If it was a fake Jesus (say a man that looked like Jesus) they would have known that he is not Jesus.

Why are we even considering this scenario? You can even establish that Jesus was even an historical figure, much less establish that the story wasn't fictitious.

To me in seems obvious (correct me if I am wrong) that no amount of historical evidence will ever convince you that a miracle took place,

I'm willing to accept evidence. Give me an authentic document from Pontius Pilate saying "Hey, I sentenced this guy to death. But now I regret it because the guy seems to have come back to life and is haunting a bunch of people", and I will grant you the historicity of Jesus.

The problem, as you may not have yet realized, is that there is no evidence. There reason why there is no amount of evidence you can bring that would ever convince me, is that there is no evidence that you can bring me, if you had, convincing would have been easy.
Now what I'm not going to do is just to accept at face value what you say is enough evidence just because you said so.

at most we can agree that something unusual happened 2,000 years ago.

No, I don't. Not in this context, no.

Given these historical facts that are widely accepted by the majority of historians:

Who are these historians exactly? And why did they accepted this?

Jesus died in a cross and was buried.
The tomb was found empty
At least some of the early Christians saw something that was interpreted by them as a resurrection

Why do you say this as if it was a fact? Jesus could have been a fictional character.
How do you know that Jesus died on a cross?
Do you have his death sentence inscribed on judicial documents we can look at?
Was there a coroner on the spot pronouncing it?
Mortuary record?
How do you know he was buried?
Do you have document with the sale of the parcel used to bury him?
An engraving? A tomb stone?
A note from the grave keeper?
How do you know the tomb was found empty?
Do you even know if there was even a tomb to be found?
An investigation document on the grave robbery?
How do you know that there was any Christians who saw anything?
Why didn't they bothered to write anything? Since they were in a better position than anyone else that cam afterwards?

May I remind you that the earliest, written mention of Jesus (and I'm not even talking about execution and resurrection details) is at least 50 years after the supposed events?
50 years! Just think about that. A 50 year old man wasn't even born at the time of the event. Its like only starting to talk about the death of Martin Luther King Jr. TODAY!
(and, as well know, he was pecked to death by a flock of pigeons, it is true because I wrote it down, totally accurate and contemporary account).

At least some early Christians honestly and sincerely believed (on the basis of their experience) in the resurrection and where willing to die for that believe.

As there are people today who honestly and sincerely believe that they have been abducted by aliens! So what?

If you grant these uncontroversial historical facts

They are not uncontroversial, nor are they facts,

without appealing to an extraordinary hypothesis? how do you explain these facts?

Do you want completely un-extraordinary explanation, one that doesn't require magic, a phenomena that we can observe happening today, simple, explains all the facts, and is completely consistent with what we see?

The story wasn't real. There were only people who believed that it was. That is it.


Now are you an atheist yet?
Of course not! You are not a christian because you think the evidence is sufficient to convince you. You are christian because you think you will be going to hell if you start believing otherwise. It is because you have all this emotional baggage, a set of rose-tinted glasses that makes you ignore all the problems a make you grasp for whatever it is that would make this delusion going, even if it is not real.
It's like being attached to an abusive girlfriend, some people will ignore the beatings and clasp to the belief that tomorrow this evil stress that is affecting her will turn and everything will be alright. But it never does.
I'm trying to give you some help here. Stop thinking about this in terms of your religion. Think instead if this someone else's religion, would you let this fly? Or maybe do not think of religion, try to apply to some other concept, like people who believe that Elvis is still very much alive!
People have seen Elvis after his death. If it was a fake Elvis, wouldn't the family know?