A "Twelve Facts" resurrection logic puzzle

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

I am studying “the twelve facts” and want to get down what I’ve got so far. After the facts are displayed, we’re going to turn the whole thing into a logic puzzle.

Here are the 12 Facts:

1.Jesus died by Roman crucifixion. 1

2.He was buried, most likely in a private tomb.

3.Soon afterwards the disciples were discouraged, bereaved and despondent, having lost hope.

4.Jesus’ tomb was found empty very soon after his interment.

5.The disciples had experiences that they believed were the actual appearances of the risen Christ. 2

6.Due to these experiences, the disciples lives were thoroughly transformed. They were even willing to die for their belief.

7.The proclamation of the Resurrection took place very early, from the beginning of church history.

8.The disciple’s public testimony and preaching of the Resurrection took place in the city of Jerusalem, where Jesus had been crucified and buried shortly before.

9.The gospel message centered on the preaching of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

10.Sunday was the primary day of worshiping and gathering.

11.James, the brother of Jesus and a skeptic before this time, became a follower of Jesus when he believed he also saw the risen Jesus.

12.Just a few years later, Paul became a believer, due to an experience that he also believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.

More information on 5 of the 12 facts here.

Relevant books I really need to read about this:

Dr. Habermas’ book, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. College Press Publishing Company, Inc.; Subsequent edition (June 3, 1996)

Dr. Habermas’ book, The Risen Jesus and Future Hope. New York, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.: 2003

I am taking Biola’s distance certificate in apologetics, and my favorite part so far (I have only completed the first of three modules) is a hand-out to accompany Craig Hazen’s lecture “Evidence for the Resurrection”. It has a list of the twelve facts on one side, and on the reverse side a list of thirteen competing theories regarding the resurrection.

This is where the “logic puzzle” comes in. The question on the “resurrection theories” side of the hand-out reads “Which theory best fits the data about the resurrection claims?” and by ‘data’ it means the twelve facts on the reverse side of the hand-out. At this point you could do a logic puzzle and test each theory by seeing how well it accounts for each fact.

Here William Lane Craig touches on some of those theories briefly and shows that they are ruled out by only three of those twelve facts and utilizing methods accepted by historians. This logic puzzle only deals with the “explanatory scope” requirement used by Dr. Craig.

If you want to do this yourself, research these theories and test them with the facts: unknown tomb (body thrown in common pit grave unknown to disciples), wrong tomb (women went to wrong tomb), legend (resurrection a fabrication developed over many years), twin (Jesus’ long lost twin brother showed up after Jesus died), hallucination (all the post-resurrection ‘appearances’ were hallucinations), existential resurrection (Jesus rose, not in history, but in our hearts), spiritual resurrection (Jesus came back as a spirit), disciples stole the body (earliest Jewish polemic), authorities hid the body (to prevent problems), swoon (or ‘apparent death’ because Jesus didn’t actually die but revived in the tomb), passover plot (disciples made the whole thing up that Jesus resurrected), Jesus was an alien (nuff said), bodily resurrection (the orthodox view).

Don’t keep reading unless you don’t want to do the logic puzzle on your own.

The hand-out provides the answers to the puzzle.

Occupied tomb theories:

The Unknown Tomb theory does not explain facts 4-12.

The Wrong Tomb theory does not expalin 5-12.

The Legend theory does not explain any of them.

The Twin theory does not explain facts 4 or 11.

The Hallucination theory does not explain facts 5, 11 or 12.

The Existential Resurrection and the Spiritual Resurrection theories do not explain facts 4, 5, 11 or 12.

So much for the ‘occupied tomb’ theories.

Natural empty tomb theories:

The Disciples Stole Body theory does not account for facts 5, 6, 11 or 12.

The Authorities Hid Body theory does not explain 5-12.

The Swoon theory leaves 1 and 6 unexplained.

The Passover Plot theory leaves 5, 6, 11 and 12 unexplained.

The Alien Jesus theory explains all the data.

Supernatural empty tomb theory:

The Bodily Resurrection theory explains all the data.

So–if you really value following where the evidence leads…you can conclude either that Jesus was an alien, or that he was bodily resurrected.

[Amorphos]

If all that were found was an empty tomb then how do we know that jesus was buried there.
Do we know he existed
That he was crucified [and in that place]
That he was buried in a private tomb [was he rich?]
That someone didn’t move his body
That a dude who looked like jesus was not staged so as to make bereaved believers think jesus had risen.
That jesus hadent actually died on the cross!!! i.e. that he had been on the cross but had been taken off before he died.

The Alien Jesus theory explains all the data.

If jesus really was the son of god, then I’d assume he would be born on all planets with humanoids on, otherwise the whole universe bar earth are damned. that’s a whole lot of crucifixions and a massive assumption that there would be romans and jews on all those planets such that the bible ~ the word of god, would be true in all cases.

[phyllo]

Isn’t this a fairly reasonable account:
Jesus was not yet dead when his followers got permission to take down his body for burial. They pretended to be placing his body in the tomb but actually they tried to heal him. He briefly recovered and made an appearance to the other disciples. However, he soon succumbed to his injuries.

[Jayson]

1.Jesus died by Roman crucifixion. 1

There is no date of when an alleged crucifixion took place.
There are extremely few accounts of any execution of a Jesus outside of the gospel accounts, and the gospel accounts are not only suspect, they are incomplete as there are competing texts from the around the same time period on the same subject matter that account radical difference in the accounts and properties thereof. Further, the exact dating of the gospel texts is quite uncertain, as well, the authorship is absolutely uncertain; some gospels (such as John) are clearly comprised of multiple authors (or one author with a serious case of dissociative identity disorder that involves a change to personalities that vary in grammatical education).

Non-gospel accounts that we have are not much better at helping verify how this instance took place or how it occurred.
We have Mara Bar-Serapion.
To which he writes:

What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that their Kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; He lived on in the teaching which He had given

This segment is from a 6th or 7th century manuscript, that has little to do with Christianity at all, labeled Quarto 14658 (or BL Add. 14658 elsewhere).[1.a][1.b]
This copy of this letter can only be loosely deduced to be from somewhere between the mid 70CE all the way up to possibly the third century CE (when the canon of Christianity began to form).

The direct identity of the subject “King” mentioned is not directly clear in this text, but we can assume it to be Jesus due to related reasons listed hereafter.
The author is not verifiable in his standing in relation to Jerusalem at the alleged time of Jesus’ crucifixion, for he was a Roman Stoic Philosopher that was evidently (from the letter’s contents) a converted Christian at the time, or at least a believer in a unified and singular God to which he praises regularly (as opposed to the Roman pantheon), and was also in prison - from the text, it seems rather likely to presume for being Christian as the ideologies therein are extremely Christian and praise is granted to God, and God appears seven times in the text specifically by title, and the context of the text addresses Roman citizens being run out of their cities and the fall of the Roman civility.

Another is from Publius Cornelius Tacitus; who was a senator, and lived from 56 to 117 CE.
He started his political carrier around 82CE, so he was not involved in political decisions directly at the alleged time of Jesus’ crucifixion, however, being in the Senate, he would have at least (but possibly only) hearsay knowledge of hot issues that were relevant to current turmoils.
From his text writing, it is apparent that he was under the opinion that “Christus” was the individual understood today to be “Jesus”, at least terrestrially.
He wrote of Christus in his Annals, Book V, covering 62 to 65 CE.[1.c]

And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

In this mentioning, we have no direct mention of a crucifixion, but we do have mention of “extreme penalty” (which could refer to the crucifixion, as in the original translation of either Latin or Greek that could easily mean, “the most extreme penalty”, which would imply the worst penalty of the law; which would be a crucifixion).
Here, Tacitus writes his opinion of the matter surrounding the charges against the Christus as a, “mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out of not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome…”
His opinion of Jesus, therefore, was that he was a regular human in which superstitious beliefs were held regarding; successfully stopped, and then continued on at a later date first in Judaea and then outside of Judaea.

There is the satirist Lucian of Samosata, wasn’t born until 125CE so he is not valid for any kind of proximity account.
In have is his summary of the situation that reflects a similar opinion as to that of Tacitus, but in slight of slander and humor at the Christian’s expense in this work of fiction, “THE DEATH OF PEREGRINE” [1.d]:

Theagenes (our friend with the lungs) had got thus far, when 5 I asked one of the bystanders what all this meant about ‘fire,’ and what Heracles and Empedocles had got to do with Proteus?–‘Proteus,’ he replied, ‘will shortly cremate himself, at the Olympic games.’–‘But how,’ I asked, ‘and why?’ He did his best to explain, but the Cynic went on bawling, and it was quite out of the question to attend to anything else. I waited on to the end. It was one torrent of wild panegyric on Proteus. The sage of Sinope, Antisthenes his master,–nay, Socrates himself–none of them were so much as to be compared with him. Zeus was invited to contend for the preeminence. Subsequently however it seemed advisable to leave the two on some sort of equality. ‘The world,’ he cried in 6 conclusion, 'has seen but two works of surpassing excellence, the Olympian Zeus, and–Proteus. The one we owe to the

p. 81

creative genius of Phidias; the other is Nature’s handiwork. And now, this godlike statue departs from among mankind; borne upon wings of fire, he seeks the heavens, and leaves us desolate.’ He had worked himself up into a state of perspiration over all this; and when it was over he was very absurd, and cried, and tore his hair,–taking care not to pull too hard; and was finally taken away by some compassionate Cynics, sobbing violently all the time.

7Well, after him, up jumped somebody else, before the crowd had time to disperse; pouring his libation upon the glowing embers of the previous sacrifice. He commenced operations with a loud guffaw–there was no doubting its sincerity–after which he addressed us as follows. ‘Theagenes (Heaven forgive him!) concluded his vile rant with the tears of Heraclitus: I, on the other hand, propose to begin with the laughs of Democritus.’ Another hearty guffaw, in which most of us 8 were fain to join. ‘One simply can’t help it,’ he remarked, pulling himself together, 'when one hears such sad stuff talked, and sees old men practically standing on their heads for the public amusement,–and all to keep their grubby little reputations alive! Now, if you want to know all about this " statue " which proposes to cremate itself, I’m your man. I have marked his career from the first, and followed his intellectual development; and I learnt a good deal from his fellow citizens, and others whose authority was unquestionable.

9’To begin then, this piece of perfect workmanship, straight from Nature’s mould, this type of true proportion, had barely come of age, when he was caught in adultery; in Armenia this was; he received a brisk drubbing for his pains, and finally made a jump of it from the roof, and so got off. His next exploit was the corruption of a handsome boy. This would have brought him before the Governor, by rights; but the parents were poor, and he bought them off to the tune of a hundred

p. 82

and twenty pounds. But perhaps it is hardly worth while mentioning trifles of this kind. Our clay, you see, is yet unwrought10: the “perfect workmanship” is still to come. That business about his father makes rather good hearing: only you know all about that;–how the old fellow would hang on, though he was past sixty already, till Proteus could stand it no longer, and put a noose about his neck. Well, this began to be talked about; so he passed sentence of banishment on himself, and wandered about from place to place.

It was now that he came across the priests and scribes of the 11 Christians, in Palestine, and picked up their queer creed. I can tell you, he pretty soon convinced them of his superiority; prophet, elder, ruler of the Synagogue–he was everything at once; expounded their books, commented on them, wrote books himself. They took him for a God, accepted his laws, and declared him their president. The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day,–the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. Well, the end of it was that Proteus was arrested and thrown12 into prison. This was the very thing to lend an air to his favourite arts of clap-trap and wonder-working; he was now a made man. The Christians took it all very seriously: he was no sooner in prison, than they began trying every means to get him out again,–but without success. Everything else that could be done for him they most devoutly did. They thought of nothing else. Orphans and ancient widows might be seen hanging about the prison from break of day. Their officials bribed the gaolers to let them sleep inside with him. Elegant dinners were conveyed in; their sacred writings were read; and our old friend Peregrine (as he was still called in those days) became for them “the modern Socrates.” In some of the Asiatic 13 cities, too, the Christian communities put themselves to the expense of sending deputations, with offers of sympathy, assistance,

p. 83

and legal advice. The activity of these people, in dealing with any matter that affects their community, is something extraordinary; they spare no trouble, no expense. Peregrine, all this time, was making quite an income on the strength of his bondage; money came pouring in. You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on trust, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property. Now an adroit, unscrupulous fellow, who has seen the world, has only to get among these simple souls, and his fortune is pretty soon made; he plays with them.

14’To return, however, to Peregrine. The governor of Syria perceived his mental warp: “he must make a name, though he die for it:” now philosophy was the governor’s hobby; he discharged him–wouldn’t hear of his being punished–and Peregrine returned to Armenia. He found it too hot to hold him. He was threatened from all quarters with prosecutions for parricide. Then again, the greater part of his property had disappeared in his absence: nothing was left but the land, which might be worth a matter of four thousand pounds. The whole estate, as the old man left it, would come perhaps to eight thousand. Theagenes was talking nonsense when he said a million odd. Why, the whole city, with its five nearest neighbours thrown in, men, cattle, and goods of every description15, would never fetch that sum.

There is the Babylonian Talmud (a religious text) (no earlier than 200CE) in Folio 43a which writes of Jesus as a heretic.

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu34 was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.’ But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!35 — Ulla retorted: ‘Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him?36 With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty, i.e., influential].’
Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah. When Matthai was brought [before the court] he said to them [the judges], Shall Matthai be executed? Is it not written, Matthai [when] shall I come and appear before God?37 Thereupon they retorted; Yes, Matthai shall be executed, since it is written, When Matthai [when] shall [he] die and his name perish.38 When Nakai was brought in he said to them; Shall Nakai be executed? It is not written, Naki [the innocent] and the righteous slay thou not?39 Yes, was the answer, Nakai shall be executed, since it is written, in secret places does Naki40 [the innocent] slay.41 When Nezer was brought in, he said; Shall Nezer be executed? Is it not written, And Nezer [a twig] shall grow forth out of his roots.42 Yes, they said, Nezer shall be executed, since it is written, But thou art cast forth away from thy grave like Nezer [an abhorred offshoot].43 When Buni was brought in, he said: Shall Buni be executed? Is it not written, Beni [my son], my first born?44 Yes, they said, Buni shall be executed, since it is written, Behold I will slay Bine-ka [thy son] thy first born.45 And when Todah was brought in, he said to them; Shall Todah be executed? Is it not written, A psalm for Todah [thanksgiving]?46 Yes, they answered, Todah shall be executed, since it is written, Whoso offereth the sacrifice of Todah [thanksgiving] honoured me.47

And we have Josephus, the most famous account.[1.e]

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Firstly, Josephus was late to the game and was writing of a mass amount of history of which much is in dispute with other similar time-period sources.
For instance, there is the instance of Biblical Antiquities (Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum)[[sacred-texts.com/bib/bap/index.htm]1.f[/url]] which disagrees with Josephus on many accounts.
Then there is the problem of this concept:

…We may add that the fact that in the passage in the Way parallel to the one in the Antquities about Pilate there is no mention of Jesus, despite the fact that the account of Pilate in the War is almost as full as the version in the Antiquities, corroborates our suspecion that there was either no passage about Jesus in the original text of the Antiquities or that it had a different form. We may also note that Josephus’ great contermporary and rival Justus of Tiberias, aparaently made no mention of Jesus (Photuis, Biblioteca 33).

[1.e (page 431)]

SUMMARY
For fact 1; we haven’t any reason to call it a solid fact flatly.
What we do have is a relatively logical conclusion that it is fairly likely that there was an individual by a name of some degree that was involved in some kind of religiously and governmental legal issue on the grand level to which he was tortured and killed for; and from which the charges and acclaims over spawned the later developed Roman Christian religion which was viewed by its contemporaries as a superstitious belief in a man.

2.He was buried, most likely in a private tomb.

That is not a fact by any stretch.
Firstly, it is heavily disagreed upon in anthropology, and scholarship.
Secondly, the social anthropology of Roman practice regarding the dead of Palestinian Jewish criminals is well documented and the first place that a body of such was taken was to the local Sanhedrin, who would then arrange for a dishonorable burial in a criminal tomb; which would not exactly have been exclusive.[2.a]

Further, not all early textual gospel and non-canon accounts have a mention of the missing body tomb in resurrected form.
For instance, Mark lacks any account of such, and Matthews account of such is post the passage where we once again shift authorship grammatical style and tonality raising questions of a differing author to the content preceding it.

There are currently no secondary accounts of this event at all, unlike the previously discussed crucifixion which has at least a few secondary accounts plausibly discussing the circumstances in varying degrees.

3.Soon afterwards the disciples were discouraged, bereaved and despondent, having lost hope.

Outside of the religious texts, we have no account of this, nor are the various papyri and manuscript copies of the variety of religious texts that discuss the events consistent on what took place; some differ on minor tangents while other disagree markedly on various disciples ever leaving at all.

4.Jesus’ tomb was found empty very soon after his interment.

Again, as in 2, this is absolutely unfounded and not a fact.
We haven’t, firstly, any facts to support that there was a specific tomb used or if one was at all.

5.The disciples had experiences that they believed were the actual appearances of the risen Christ. 2

Outside of the gospel texts, we have no account of such.
We have conjecture of interpretation of whichever selected ancient religious texts a given scholar chooses to draw from.
And not all accounts cite these events as having had taken place.

6.Due to these experiences, the disciples lives were thoroughly transformed. They were even willing to die for their belief.

The first part of this alleged fact ties in with 5 and is therefore not a fact, but a conjecture.
In regards to their deaths, the only account of the Disciples’ deaths are from 3rd century traditions.

7.The proclamation of the Resurrection took place very early, from the beginning of church history.

The “beginning of church history” is rather late in the game; by nearly a hundred years or so.
Prior to this there were several small and independent growing’s of Christianity that did not discuss the same messages much at all.
In some groups, Jesus was simply a holy man.
In others, a demi god.
In others, a savior.
And various other tangents included as to the going on’s of the story; and that was before the unification of the Church, which even the unification was a battle between two largely followed theologies in which one held a divine Resurrection and the other did not.
And this latter did not occur in set format of declaration until the Nicene Creed.

8.The disciple’s public testimony and preaching of the Resurrection took place in the city of Jerusalem, where Jesus had been crucified and buried shortly before.

Even according to Christian-backed tradition, this is not the case.[8.a]
In the traditions, only James the Just and James the Greater were in Jerusalem.
All the others, by Christian tradition, were in a variety of locations where they eventually met their death in martyrdom.

Aside from this tradition, there is no account of any followers of Jesus continuing to teach anyone in Judaea at all.
No further prosecutions were made note of regarding any further Rabbis from the Rabbi Jesus, or followers of a Rabbi of the like, refusing to cease their heresy.

9.The gospel message centered on the preaching of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

That is not a fact. That is a theological interpretation.
The fact is that the texts that comprise the gospels have varying contents that focus on differing concepts.
For instance, Mark, once again, hasn’t any message of resurrection.

Even if these books all did account for the same thing and focused on the same concept without any question of authorship in varying sections and translation differences between copies of the texts, that would only account for a tiny portion of the texts used by early Christians as these select groups of texts were not condoned as the exclusive group of books to work from until the third century.

The themes and focuses of all texts used by Christians and held as their respective gospels early on were not all aimed at a resurrection theme.

And even if they were, that is not a fact.

All Star Wars movies convey a message of robotic take over of our humanity when progressively becoming evil.
That doesn’t mean there’s a factual account in that just because they all share a common theme.
But again, the early separate cliques of Christians were not united on their themes.

10.Sunday was the primary day of worshiping and gathering.

What? When?
The Sunday tradition came far later…besides that…what does that have to do with anything?

11.James, the brother of Jesus and a skeptic before this time, became a follower of Jesus when he believed he also saw the risen Jesus.

Hearsay.
No supporting evidence of this at all.

12.Just a few years later, Paul became a believer, due to an experience that he also believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.

Paul does indeed become a radical evangelist.
The account he gives has never been verified by any other hand aside from his own.
Further, Paul deviates from even the later canonized Gospel texts in many manners, so I’m not sure how including Paul really makes any merit. He apparently couldn’t even decide who’s citizen he was accurately. He changed his mind about that a few times.

This logic puzzle only deals with the “explanatory scope”

No it doesn’t.
It only deals with conjectural supposition based largely on theologically traditional holdings of the Christian faith established around the third century CE.

The only thing that was much of a fact in that entire list was Jesus getting killed for being a criminal to Judaea.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

Jayson, I’m not here to debate the facts that the majority of NT scholars, including atheists, accept as historical. You can take that up with them. The rest of what you said wasn’t even mentioned in the original post. I do not have unlimited time.

phyllo–that is the “Apparent Death” or “Swoon” theory (with a conspiracy twist), which is mentioned in the original post, and which does not account for facts 1, 5, 6, 11 or 12.

If all that were found was an empty tomb then how do we know that jesus was buried there.
Do we know he existed
That he was crucified [and in that place]
That he was buried in a private tomb [was he rich?]

– quetzalcoatl

quetzalcoatl, try this: ichthus77.blogspot.com/2011/07/w … ction.html and skipt to the section on the empty tomb.

That someone didn’t move his body
That a dude who looked like jesus was not staged so as to make bereaved believers think jesus had risen.
That jesus hadent actually died on the cross!!! i.e. that he had been on the cross but had been taken off before he died.

• q

If someone moved his body, that would be either the Unknown Tomb (facts 4-12 unaccounted for), Disciples Stole the Body (facts 5, 6, 11 or 12 unaccounted for), or Authorities Hid the Body (facts 5-12 unaccounted for) theory. A look-alike would have to be a twin–that would be the Twin theory (facts 4, 11 unaccounted for). And your last one is the same one phyllo mentioned (after you), w/o the conspiracy twist (facts 1, 6 unaccounted for).

If jesus really was the son of god, then I’d assume he would be born on all planets with humanoids on, otherwise the whole universe bar earth are damned. that’s a whole lot of crucifixions and a massive assumption that there would be romans and jews on all those planets such that the bible ~ the word of god, would be true in all cases.

– q

If there are other planets with intelligent life, I’m certain they are no accident and that God would be able to send his Logos, first as a written precursor, then as one of their own, to show them, in ways relevant to them, that he loves them no matter what. Perhaps he already has, as in our case. You are silly

[Jayson]

Jayson, I’m not here to debate the facts that the majority of NT scholars, including atheists, accept as historical.

You say that like there’s a united anthropologically claimed standing that lists those facts.
There isn’t.

I wouldn’t have a problem with you saying that if there were actually a majority of anthropologists and scholars that agreed unanimously on these twelve items as all being established.

If you disagree, then what are the citations of the majority of scholars that agree unanimously on these twelve items?

Start with just the Disciples.
Where is the anthropological majority that states that each carried out proselytizing in Jerusalem after the crucifixion?

Even on this alone.
If such were the case; why does the Christian tradition differ on this fact?
What facts lead these alleged majority of anthropology to conclude that the Disciples of the Gospels continued in Jerusalem rather than following actions according to the Christian tradition?

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

Jayson, see the original post. Facts 1 and 5 contain hyperlinked numbers. Follow them. It only pertains to 5 of the 12 facts. For the rest, look the books up that are by Habermas (mentioned in original post) on Google books and see if you can scan them for mention of the scholars. I didn’t say anthropologists. We’re talking historians, New Testament scholars.

Jerusalem is where it started. Obviously it didn’t stop there, or we wouldn’t know about it. C’mon now.

[phyllo]

phyllo–that is the “Apparent Death” or “Swoon” theory (with a conspiracy twist), which is mentioned in the original post, and which does not account for facts 1, 5, 6, 11 or 12.

1.Jesus died by Roman crucifixion.

Perhaps the Roman’s believed he was dead when they agreed to release his body. Jesus would have been unconscious. People have been judged to be dead and have woken up in the coffin.

5.The disciples had experiences that they believed were the actual appearances of the risen Christ. 2
6.Due to these experiences, the disciples lives were thoroughly transformed. They were even willing to die for their belief.
11.James, the brother of Jesus and a skeptic before this time, became a follower of Jesus when he believed he also saw the risen Jesus.

If Jesus had recovered then his faith and courage would have been inspirational. The fact that he survived a crucifixion may have been taken as miraculous.

12.Just a few years later, Paul became a believer, due to an experience that he also believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.

According to Acts, Paul saw a light and heard Jesus’ voice. His traveling companions either saw a light or saw nothing. They either heard a voice or heard nothing. Depends on which section you are reading.

[Amorphos]

Ichthus

I don’t think we have any verifiable facts, but if the son of god impregnated his own mother with himself then so be it.

If there are other planets with intelligent life, I’m certain they are no accident and that God would be able to send his Logos, first as a written precursor, then as one of their own, to show them, in ways relevant to them, that he loves them no matter what. Perhaps he already has, as in our case. You are silly

Well I was basing the notion on the singularity of godhood; the son of the god etc. if the word of god is interpretative to the extent that it doesn’t need any of the cultures and personalities in the bible, then I’m fine with that. In my mind and with all the potential permutations of that, I’d end up questioning what is and what isn’t the word of god in any given story, history and philosophy [not meaning that everything is the word of god, but that it can be found in books as it can in life]. …which again is fine because that exactly how I see things, and these questions are how I arrived at that.

.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

@phyllo

phyllo–that is the “Apparent Death” or “Swoon” theory (with a conspiracy twist), which is mentioned in the original post, and which does not account for facts 1, 5, 6, 11 or 12.

1.Jesus died by Roman crucifixion.

Perhaps the Roman’s believed he was dead when they agreed to release his body. Jesus would have been unconscious. People have been judged to be dead and have woken up in the coffin.

Not if they died by Roman crucifixion after being tortured. That is not congruent with what we know about how Roman executioners made sure a crucified person was dead before taking them down from the cross. Jesus was pierced through his side, into his heart. Nobody survives that. If they do, it is a miracle. But–he didn’t. He died. And again, if you are right and even the executioners were in on it, then how do you account for facts 1, 5, 6, 11 and/or 12?

5.The disciples had experiences that they believed were the actual appearances of the risen Christ. 2
6.Due to these experiences, the disciples lives were thoroughly transformed. They were even willing to die for their belief.
11.James, the brother of Jesus and a skeptic before this time, became a follower of Jesus when he believed he also saw the risen Jesus.

If Jesus had recovered then his faith and courage would have been inspirational. The fact that he survived a crucifixion may have been taken as miraculous.

1. Jesus would not have recovered without a miracle, you are right. 2. If he ‘had’ recovered, it would have proven he was a false prophet, since the death and resurrection he foretold (but which totally confused the disciples) would not have happened. 3. If he ‘had’ recovered (with your conspiracy twist), how do you account for facts 1, 5, 6, 11 and/or 12? 4. You should see this link for more reasons why “Apparent Death” (or “Swoon”) just does not work: http://ichthus77.blogspot.com/2011/07/wlcs-case-for-resurrection.html

12.Just a few years later, Paul became a believer, due to an experience that he also believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.

According to Acts, Paul saw a light and heard Jesus’ voice. His traveling companions either saw a light or saw nothing. They either heard a voice or heard nothing. Depends on which section you are reading.

They heard the voice but did not understand it, and they saw light but no man. These are issues w/ translation. Compare to Stephen’s vision in Acts, which nobody but Stephen experienced whatsoever. Doesn’t make it an hallucination, but–the appearance to Paul involved other people experiencing some of it, though not exactly in the same way. The appearance wasn’t meant for them, as Stephen’s vision wasn’t meant for those who stoned him. Btw, Paul was there, holding the coats in full approval. So explain his change of heart.

[felix_dakat]

To accept these propositions as facts requires faith.

[phyllo]

That is not congruent with what we know about how Roman executioners made sure a crucified person was dead before taking them down from the cross.

We don’t know how the Romans verified that Jesus was dead. Could have been a quick visual check.

Jesus was pierced through his side, into his heart. Nobody survives that.

Only John said that Jesus’ side was pierced. It’s not stated in the other 3 gospels.

The gospels say that the Romans were surprised at how quickly Jesus died. He didn’t spend a long time on the cross. That raises the possibility that he was unconscious and near death, but perhaps still alive.

2. If he ‘had’ recovered, it would have proven he was a false prophet, since the death and resurrection he foretold (but which totally confused the disciples) would not have happened.

Jesus ‘foretold’ something in a text written decades after the events. How does that work?

So explain his change of heart.

Paul changed his mind about persecuting Christians. How does that show that Jesus was bodily resurrected?

[Jayson]

@Ichthus

Jayson, see the original post. Facts 1 and 5 contain hyperlinked numbers. Follow them. It only pertains to 5 of the 12 facts. For the rest, look the books up that are by Habermas (mentioned in original post) on Google books and see if you can scan them for mention of the scholars. I didn’t say anthropologists. We’re talking historians, New Testament scholars.

I did.
This is what was given.
[tab]

1. Some New Testament specialists, theologians, historians, and philosophers who grant these facts include:

2. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:44-46, 52, 60, 80-83.

3. Tillich, Systematic Theology, 2:153-58.

4. John Hick, Death and Eternal Life (Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 171-77.

5. Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, 179-86.

6. Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:84-86, 100.

7. Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. 4, part 1, 334-36, 351-53.

8. Emil Brunner, Dogmatics, 3 vols., trans. Olive Wyon (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1950-79), 2:363-78.

9. Moltmann, Theology of Hope, 165-66, 172, 197-202.

10. C.H. Dodd, “Appearances of the Risen Christ,” 124-25, 131-33.

11. Perrin, Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 78-84.

12. Robinson, Can We Trust? 113-29.

13. Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 27-49.

14. Grant, Jesus, 174-79.

15. Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, 88-106.

16. Wilckens, Resurrection, 6-16, 112-14.

17. Jeremias, “Easter,” 300-311.

18. Werner Georg Kummel, The Theology of the New Testament: According to its Major Witnesses: Jesus—Paul—John (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1973), 102-5.

19. Brown, Virginal Conception, 80-82, 128.

20. Goppelt, “Easter Kerygma,” 35-37, 43-53.

21. Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Random House, 1979), 3-12.

22. Marcus Barth and Verne H. Fletcher, Acquittal by Resurrection (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964), part 1 (Barth), 11-15, 37-39.

23. Paul Van Buren, The Secular Meaning of the Gospel: Based on an Analysis of its Language (New York: Macmillan, 1963), 126-34.

24. Wand, Christianity, 51, 59, 84, 93, 108.

25. Hunter, Jesus: Lord and Saviour, 98-107.

26. Ramsey, The Resurrection of Christ, 35-45.

27. W.T. Jones, A History of Western Philosophy, 5 vols, 2nd ed., (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1969), 2:34-35, 39.

28. Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection, 36-43, 93, 109-11.

29. Daniel Fuller, Easter Faith and History (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1965), 208-29

30. Thielicke, “The Resurrection Kerygma,” 59-62, 86-91.

31. Osborne, The Resurrection Narratives, 231-33, 276-77, 281-88.

32. Perkins, Resurrection, 84-95, 196-210.

33. Kee, What Can We Know?, 1-2, 21-23, 60-61, 85-86, 90.

34. Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 91-99, 125-31.

35. Sheehan, The First Coming, 101-18.

36. Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 115-34, 159-61.

37. Craig, Assessing, 36-38, 53-82, 163-96, 379-420.

38. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, 10-13, 125-26, 133-36, 277-81.

39. O’Collins, Jesus Risen, 99-147.

40. Johnson, The Real Jesus, 110-22, 133-36.

41. Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality? 47-56, 239-43, 255-60.

42. Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 77-107.

43. Funk, Honest to Jesus, 33-40, 260, 267-75.

44. Murray Harris, Raised Immortal: Resurrection and Immortality in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1983), 5-11, 60.

45. Ludemann, What Really Happened to Jesus, 9-17, 102-5, 125-34.

46. Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 131-36, 141-44, 184-87.

47. Clark, Interpreting the Resurrection, 89-101.

48. Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 164-88, 204-5.

49. John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1991), 372-75, 397-98.

50. Crossan, Jesus, 135, 145, 154, 165, 190.

51. Davis, Risen Indeed, 15, 177-85.

52. Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 227-31.

53. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 3:67-71, 146-47, 234-35, 251-52, 625.

54. Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 4-15, 47, 113-17, 188.

55. Wright, The New Testament, 111, 353-54, 400-401.

56. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 109-12, 480, 487, 551-52, 659.

2. Some critical scholars, including very skeptical scholars, who believe that Jesus’ disciples, had genuine experiences that led them to conclude that they saw appearances of the risen Jesus include:
3. Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:84.
4. Goulder, “The Baseless Fabric,” 48.
5. Borg, “Thinking about Easter,” 15.
6. Crossan, Jesus, 190.
7. Funk, Honest to Jesus, 40, 266.
8. Hoover, “A Contest,” 131, 92-97, 111, 141.
9. Rudolf Pesch, “Zur Entstehung des Glaubens an die Auferstehung Jesu: Ein neuer Versach,” Freiburger Zeitschrift fur Philosophie und Theologie 30 (1983): 87.
10. Anton Vogtle in Vogtle and Rudolf Pesch, Wie kam es zum Osterglauben? (Dusseldorf, Germany: Patmos-Verlag, 1975), 85-98.
11. John Galvin, “Resurrection as Theologia Crucis Jesu: The Foundational Christology of Rudolf Pesch,” Theological Studies 38 (1977): 521-23.
12. Conzelmann, Corinthians, 258-66.
13. Perrin, The Resurrection, 80-83.
14. Ludemann, The Resurrection of Jesus, 37, 50, 66.
15. Kent, Psychological Origins, 18-19.
16. James Keller, “Response to Davis,” Faith and Philosophy 7 (1990): 114.
17. Hans Werner Bartsch, “Inhalt und Funktion des Urchristlichen Osterglaubens,” New Testament Studies 26 (1980): 180, 194-95.
18. James M. Robinson, “Jesus from Easter to Valentinus (or to the Apostles’ Creed),” Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982): 8, 20.
19. Wells, Did Jesus Exist? 32, 207.
20. Martin, The Case against Christianity, 83, 90.
21. Spong, Resurrection, 51-53, 173.
22. Sheehan, The First Coming, 91.
23. Elliot, “The First Easter,” 209-10, 220.
24. Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 47, 188.
25. Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity, trans. William V. Dych (New York: Seabury Press, 1978), 265, 277.
26. Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Die Auferstehung Jesu: Historie und Theologie,” Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche 91 (1994): 320-23.
27. Moltmann, Theology of Hope, 172-73.
28. Brown, Virginal Conception, 125-29.
29. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus, 75.
30. Johnson, The Real Jesus, 136.
31. Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 124-25.
32. Davis, Risen Indeed, 182.
33. Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 312, 318-20.
34. Cranfield, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 169.
35. Williams, Resurrection, 97, 117-19.
36. Alsup, Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories, 274.
37. Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 47-49, 181.
38. Jacob Kremer, Die Osterevangelien—Geschichten um Geschichte, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart, Germany: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1981), esp. 153-55.
39. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus, 60.
40. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 3:70, 235, 252.
41. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, 10-13, 278-80.
42. Wright, “Christian Origins,” 118.
43. Joseph Dore, “Croire en la Resurrection de Jesus-Christ,” Etudes 356 (1982), 532.
44. Fiorenza, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 238, 243-47.
45. O’Collins, Jesus Risen, 118-19.
46. Craig, Assessing, esp. part 3.
47. Robinson, Can We Trust? 120-27.
48. Philip Jenkins, Hidden Gospels: How the Search for the Historical Jesus Lost its Way (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 78.
49. Grant, Jesus, 176.
50. Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 101-04.
51. Charles Austin Perry, The Resurrection Promise (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1986), 4.
52. Lindars, “Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” in The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 127.
53. Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 125-28.
54. Samuel, Making Room,” 108-10.
55. Hansjurgen Verweyen, “Die Ostererscheinungen in fundamentaltheologischer Sicht,” Zeitschrift fur Katholische Theologie 103 (1981): 429.
56. Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 123, 130-32.
57. Goergen, Death and Resurrection, 127-28, 261.
58. William P. Loewe, “The Appearances of the Risen Lord: Faith, Fact and Objectivity,” Horizons 6 (1979): 190-91.
59. Kee, What Can We Know? 1-2, 23, 86, 113.
60. Witherington, “Resurrection Redux,” 131-32.
61. John Pilch, “Appearances of the Risen Jesus in Cultural Context,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 28 (1998):59.
62. Adrian Thatcher, “Resurrection and Rationality,” in The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 180.
63. Traugott Holtz, “Kenntnis von Jesus und Kenntnis Jesu: Eine Skizze zum Verhaltnis zwischen historisch-philologisher Erkenntnis und historisch-theologischem Verstandnis,” Theologische Literaturzeitung 104 (1979): 10.
64. Peter Stuhlmacher, Was geschah auf Golgotha? Zur Heilsbedeutung von Kreuz, Tod und Auferweckung Jesu (Stuttgart, Germany: Calwer Verlag, 1998), 58-64.

[/tab]
This is a list of supposition from context.
Educated supposition? Yes.
Facts?
No.

It even states it:

Some … who grant
Some … who believe

We haven’t one shred of evidence to call any of these items (save for partially item one) facts by.
They are only “facts” if we believe them to be, or grant them as an axiom to a further suposition.

Jerusalem is where it started. Obviously it didn’t stop there, or we wouldn’t know about it. C’mon now.

Did I say it stopped in Jerusalem?
Better said, why is it that you consider Jerusalem to be where it started?
Not one text, canon or otherwise, accounts for that much time being spent there by any of the individuals therein.
The bulk of the time was spent in the North where they are reportedly mostly from.

And anthropologically within the social context of the time period, that would make sense because the North was akin to say that one was running off to Canada or Mexico in regards to the power and rule of Judah in the South.
Judah couldn’t easily do much about the going on’s in the North, but they sure as quick-fire would kill people in Judah that openly affiliated their selves with Jesus if they had prosecuted Jesus as a heretic to the Hebrew Law.

Heck, even if you don’t want to discuss anthropological surroundings, which I can’t understand really, just look at what happened to the followers of John the Baptist in the texts themselves.
Were they rushing back in to heart of Judah?
No, they were staying on the other side of Jordan.

But let me put that aside and focus back on the primary tangent:

Again, I never stated that Jerusalem is where the following of Jesus stopped.
I said that there is no physical evidence, document ever filed, or accounted for in regards to any disciples, or followers even, of Jesus (or any such individual) ever being an issue.
The only one recorded as being an issue was Jesus.
Runner-up’s were never reported to have been a problem in Jerusalem.

The only other report we have after this is the exodus of some Hebrew peoples in the south from their alleged danger of being Hebrew followers of Jesus, and we know of them primarily because Jerome, Hippolytus of Rome, Tertullian, Epiphanius, and Irenaeus wrote of them as Ebionites.
They also considered them heretics because they disagreed with their theological interpretations.

However, the spread of the writings does not indicate that a Hebrew of any kind must have preached the concepts.
In fact, that would have been rather remarkable to accomplish considering the extent to which it would take for such a text as Revelation to occur which addresses a region so far removed in any concern with the going on’s of the Levant region and instead focuses on the coast of the Asia minor.

John and Luke are also quite obviously not using Hebrew grammatical practices, nor Hebrew cultural concepts.
Matthew and Mark, the latter far more than the former as it stands today, markedly hold Hebrew cultural concepts and preserved Hebrew styled grammatical practices.

Luke itself is so perfect of a Greek text that it is even considered by some to be the best piece of Greek literature of the time period.
And that’s not just due to the grammar, but also because of the ideologies therein that reinforce primary literary concepts of the Hellenistic mythological contexts.

What I’m getting at is that you asked that question as if no Roman lived in Judah; as if no Roman would be attracted to the ideas that the Hebrews banned.
You say it as if it is impossible to consider that a Roman could want to bring the ideas of this teacher to their home land once leaving Judah.

And you also say that as if all early Christian texts are unanimous, and only present a markedly Hebrew mindset and understanding of the world.
Hardly.
In fact, so hardly that we only have two surviving possible texts that might have been Hebrew to begin with: Matthew and Mark.
But we can’t say for certain; we can suppose by the study of the grammar and tests such as sliding them back word for word to Hebrew and finding that only these two texts survive that process reasonably well; all others fall apart.

We know of others that were Hebrew that did once exist, such as the Gospel of the Hebrews, but that was lost to time.
It also was rejected by early Roman Christian leaders.

The spread of Christianity did not require the disciples spreading the concepts around.
In fact, we have every piece of what little evidence we do have, suggesting that nothing of the sort took place; but that instead, different groups of people belonging to the Roman Empire took away their own understandings of this starting legend to their respective peoples and therein developed and discussed their own practices of following.

The early Christianity is so scattered in theology that it beats modern Protestant division.

So again, I say as I did before.
These are not facts.
They are “grants” and “beliefs”.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

Jayson you linked back to the original post. Facts 1 and 5 link to these two sections of a page:
http://preventingtruthdecay.org/jesusresurrection.shtml#ntsp
http://preventingtruthdecay.org/jesusresurrection.shtml#soja

The majority of scholars, including atheists, accept the ‘twelve facts’ as historical (again, those two links only deal with five of them, refer back to my last post).

felix,

Anything lacking certainty requires faith of the sort you mention. And that’s just about everything we believe.

No time to address everything.

[Jayson]

@Ichthus

Jayson you linked back to the original post. Facts 1 and 5 link to these two sections of a page:
http://preventingtruthdecay.org/jesusresurrection.shtml#ntsp
http://preventingtruthdecay.org/jesusresurrection.shtml#soja

The majority of scholars, including atheists, accept the ‘twelve facts’ as historical (again, those two links only deal with five of them, refer back to my last post).

What are you looking at?
What I wrote was (and this time I will remove the tab so the full is exposed for clarity)

I did.
This is what was given.

[size=150]1. Some New Testament specialists, theologians, historians, and philosophers who grant these facts include:[/size]

1. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:44-46, 52, 60, 80-83.
2. Tillich, Systematic Theology, 2:153-58.
3. John Hick, Death and Eternal Life (Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 171-77.
4. Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, 179-86.
5. Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:84-86, 100.
6. Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. 4, part 1, 334-36, 351-53.
7. Emil Brunner, Dogmatics, 3 vols., trans. Olive Wyon (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1950-79), 2:363-78.
8. Moltmann, Theology of Hope, 165-66, 172, 197-202.
9. C.H. Dodd, “Appearances of the Risen Christ,” 124-25, 131-33.
10. Perrin, Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 78-84.
11. Robinson, Can We Trust? 113-29.
12. Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 27-49.
13. Grant, Jesus, 174-79.
14. Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man, 88-106.
15. Wilckens, Resurrection, 6-16, 112-14.
16. Jeremias, “Easter,” 300-311.
17. Werner Georg Kummel, The Theology of the New Testament: According to its Major Witnesses: Jesus—Paul—John (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1973), 102-5.
18. Brown, Virginal Conception, 80-82, 128.
19. Goppelt, “Easter Kerygma,” 35-37, 43-53.
20. Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Random House, 1979), 3-12.
21. Marcus Barth and Verne H. Fletcher, Acquittal by Resurrection (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964), part 1 (Barth), 11-15, 37-39.
22. Paul Van Buren, The Secular Meaning of the Gospel: Based on an Analysis of its Language (New York: Macmillan, 1963), 126-34.
23. Wand, Christianity, 51, 59, 84, 93, 108.
24. Hunter, Jesus: Lord and Saviour, 98-107.
25. Ramsey, The Resurrection of Christ, 35-45.
26. W.T. Jones, A History of Western Philosophy, 5 vols, 2nd ed., (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1969), 2:34-35, 39.
27. Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection, 36-43, 93, 109-11.
28. Daniel Fuller, Easter Faith and History (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1965), 208-29
29. Thielicke, “The Resurrection Kerygma,” 59-62, 86-91.
30. Osborne, The Resurrection Narratives, 231-33, 276-77, 281-88.
31. Perkins, Resurrection, 84-95, 196-210.
32. Kee, What Can We Know?, 1-2, 21-23, 60-61, 85-86, 90.
33. Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 91-99, 125-31.
34. Sheehan, The First Coming, 101-18.
35. Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 115-34, 159-61.
36. Craig, Assessing, 36-38, 53-82, 163-96, 379-420.
37. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, 10-13, 125-26, 133-36, 277-81.
38. O’Collins, Jesus Risen, 99-147.
39. Johnson, The Real Jesus, 110-22, 133-36.
40. Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality? 47-56, 239-43, 255-60.
41. Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 77-107.
42. Funk, Honest to Jesus, 33-40, 260, 267-75.
43. Murray Harris, Raised Immortal: Resurrection and Immortality in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1983), 5-11, 60.
44. Ludemann, What Really Happened to Jesus, 9-17, 102-5, 125-34.
45. Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 131-36, 141-44, 184-87.
46. Clark, Interpreting the Resurrection, 89-101.
47. Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 164-88, 204-5.
48. John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1991), 372-75, 397-98.
49. Crossan, Jesus, 135, 145, 154, 165, 190.
50. Davis, Risen Indeed, 15, 177-85.
51. Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 227-31.
52. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 3:67-71, 146-47, 234-35, 251-52, 625.
53. Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 4-15, 47, 113-17, 188.
54. Wright, The New Testament, 111, 353-54, 400-401.
55. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 109-12, 480, 487, 551-52, 659.

[size=150]2. Some critical scholars, including very skeptical scholars, who believe that Jesus’ disciples, had genuine experiences that led them to conclude that they saw appearances of the risen Jesus include:
[/size]1. Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:84.
2. Goulder, “The Baseless Fabric,” 48.
3. Borg, “Thinking about Easter,” 15.
4. Crossan, Jesus, 190.
5. Funk, Honest to Jesus, 40, 266.
6. Hoover, “A Contest,” 131, 92-97, 111, 141.
7. Rudolf Pesch, “Zur Entstehung des Glaubens an die Auferstehung Jesu: Ein neuer Versach,” Freiburger Zeitschrift fur Philosophie und Theologie 30 (1983): 87.
8. Anton Vogtle in Vogtle and Rudolf Pesch, Wie kam es zum Osterglauben? (Dusseldorf, Germany: Patmos-Verlag, 1975), 85-98.
9. John Galvin, “Resurrection as Theologia Crucis Jesu: The Foundational Christology of Rudolf Pesch,” Theological Studies 38 (1977): 521-23.
10. Conzelmann, Corinthians, 258-66.
11. Perrin, The Resurrection, 80-83.
12. Ludemann, The Resurrection of Jesus, 37, 50, 66.
13. Kent, Psychological Origins, 18-19.
14. James Keller, “Response to Davis,” Faith and Philosophy 7 (1990): 114.
15. Hans Werner Bartsch, “Inhalt und Funktion des Urchristlichen Osterglaubens,” New Testament Studies 26 (1980): 180, 194-95.
16. James M. Robinson, “Jesus from Easter to Valentinus (or to the Apostles’ Creed),” Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982): 8, 20.
17. Wells, Did Jesus Exist? 32, 207.
18. Martin, The Case against Christianity, 83, 90.
19. Spong, Resurrection, 51-53, 173.
20. Sheehan, The First Coming, 91.
21. Elliot, “The First Easter,” 209-10, 220.
22. Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 47, 188.
23. Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity, trans. William V. Dych (New York: Seabury Press, 1978), 265, 277.
24. Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Die Auferstehung Jesu: Historie und Theologie,” Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche 91 (1994): 320-23.
25. Moltmann, Theology of Hope, 172-73.
26. Brown, Virginal Conception, 125-29.
27. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus, 75.
28. Johnson, The Real Jesus, 136.
29. Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 124-25.
30. Davis, Risen Indeed, 182.
31. Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 312, 318-20.
32. Cranfield, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 169.
33. Williams, Resurrection, 97, 117-19.
34. Alsup, Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories, 274.
35. Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 47-49, 181.
36. Jacob Kremer, Die Osterevangelien—Geschichten um Geschichte, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart, Germany: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1981), esp. 153-55.
37. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus, 60.
38. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 3:70, 235, 252.
39. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, 10-13, 278-80.
40. Wright, “Christian Origins,” 118.
41. Joseph Dore, “Croire en la Resurrection de Jesus-Christ,” Etudes 356 (1982), 532.
42. Fiorenza, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 238, 243-47.
43. O’Collins, Jesus Risen, 118-19.
44. Craig, Assessing, esp. part 3.
45. Robinson, Can We Trust? 120-27.
46. Philip Jenkins, Hidden Gospels: How the Search for the Historical Jesus Lost its Way (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 78.
47. Grant, Jesus, 176.
48. Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 101-04.
49. Charles Austin Perry, The Resurrection Promise (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1986), 4.
50. Lindars, “Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” in The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 127.
51. Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 125-28.
52. Samuel, Making Room,” 108-10.
53. Hansjurgen Verweyen, “Die Ostererscheinungen in fundamentaltheologischer Sicht,” Zeitschrift fur Katholische Theologie 103 (1981): 429.
54. Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 123, 130-32.
55. Goergen, Death and Resurrection, 127-28, 261.
56. William P. Loewe, “The Appearances of the Risen Lord: Faith, Fact and Objectivity,” Horizons 6 (1979): 190-91.
57. Kee, What Can We Know? 1-2, 23, 86, 113.
58. Witherington, “Resurrection Redux,” 131-32.
59. John Pilch, “Appearances of the Risen Jesus in Cultural Context,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 28 (1998):59.
60. Adrian Thatcher, “Resurrection and Rationality,” in The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 180.
61. Traugott Holtz, “Kenntnis von Jesus und Kenntnis Jesu: Eine Skizze zum Verhaltnis zwischen historisch-philologisher Erkenntnis und historisch-theologischem Verstandnis,” Theologische Literaturzeitung 104 (1979): 10.
62. Peter Stuhlmacher, Was geschah auf Golgotha? Zur Heilsbedeutung von Kreuz, Tod und Auferweckung Jesu (Stuttgart, Germany: Calwer Verlag, 1998), 58-64.

This is a list of supposition from context.
Educated supposition? Yes.
Facts?
No.

It even states it:

Some … who grant
Some … who believe

We haven’t one shred of evidence to call any of these items (save for partially item one) facts by.
They are only “facts” if we believe them to be, or grant them as an axiom to a further suposition.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

What you are wanting to do is challenge the facts that scholars accept. Do you do this because you would rather not follow where the facts lead (either to Jesus’ being an alien, or to Jesus being God)?

I just came in to say that I updated the facts with little notes on facts 5 and 8 pointing out Jews did not believe the resurrection could happen in the ‘middle’ of history to ‘one’ individual.

[Jayson]

What you are wanting to do is challenge the facts that scholars accept

I was pointing out that these aren’t facts. They are granted or believed items for consideration.
A fact is a physical object, or secondary non-partisan (from another culture) accounting of the same declarations of one society’s claims (such as we have to do with Egyptian war victory claims; we have to check other societies’ accounts that they wrote to see if corroboration is found); anthropologically speaking.

There are no physical objects in this list, nor are there secondary corroborations.
These are not anthropological facts.

These are scholastic axioms of probability if one assumes certain perspective theories.

[Uccisore]

There needs to be a development of an an apologetic of historical process. What I mean is, the best argument currently for the truth of the Resurrection is that of those 12 facts, all of them except 9, 10, and possibly 8 were commonly denied by skeptics less than a hundred years ago. In the 20th Century, Jesus-skepticism has given up so much ground that they’re grasping at the tiniest straws compared to the grand old days of “It’s all a bastardization of Osiris”. The only reason skepticism enjoys the degree of popularity today that it does it that no 1 man lives long enough to see the entire debate unfold before him, and thus cannot see how solidly the Christians have won that debate at every point.

To the modern individual, the ideas that the universe had a beginning at a finite point in the past, and that Jesus was a real person who said the things the Bible quotes him as saying are passe, and the ‘debate’ revolves around the efficacy of mass-hallucination and the finest details of the canonization process. An atheist who lived from 200 years ago to the present would have seen all his arguments destroyed, and would most likely wind up a believer if honest with himself.

[PhysBang]

[Delete]

[Jayson]

There needs to be a development of an an apologetic of historical process.

Why?
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with what was presented being granted and believed axioms from educated contextual deduction.
We, as a culture, are aware of enough anthropologically today that we are more hesitant to make bold claims of solid facts when we openly are aware that a huge chunk of information is radically missing that would be of great help to bringing clarity to the myriad of theories.

What’s wrong with honest educated proposition of plausibility?
Why do we need a defense of the historical process? Hell…it’s not even like there’s even one avenue in which we could claim is the uniformed historical process on this subject.
Different groups of academics and anthropologists use different approaches and processes to determine their conclusions of the same data.

Or am I missing your point?