Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[Gary]

Is this in his latest popular work? When I looked through How Jesus Became God, he argued for something I'd call the hallucination hypothesis.

In the most exhaustive works about historical Jesus, the most anyone will say is "this is the data we have, make of it what you will." That's what James D.G. Dunn did in Jesus Remembered and Dunn is a moderately conservative scholar.

Other scholars, like John Meier, don't even address it. E.P. Sanders talks about resurrection appearances but doesn't go into detail beyond saying that the disciples certainly had them. A.J.M. Wedderburn urges agnosticism on the historian's part.

[One Bad Pig]

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/827945

The article is behind a paywall. Fittingly, it's the only actual medical article you linked to. Did Lola change her lifestyle, or accept any treatment? It's impossible to tell from what you posted.

2.) It's impossible to know how often spontaneous remission occurs because physicians often don't document or publish the cases, the patient may simply stop showing up at the doctor's office, and most cancer patients in the past century have been conventionally treated in one way or another.

To date, the medical literature consists only of individual case studies and overviews. Some incidents, when more closely scrutinized, prove not to have been remissions at all.

Still, the phenomenon has been reported with virtually all kinds of cancer, more frequently in some types than others. Kidney, brain, uterine and skin cancer (melanoma) were the four most common types, according to a review of 176 published cases from 1900 to 1960 by University of Illinois College of Medicine surgeons Tilden Everson and Warren Cole. In cases of infant neuroblastoma, regression is so common that screening isn't recommended, according to the National Cancer Institute.

Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifest...914-story.html

This popular news article claims that most people who refuse traditional treatment attempt alternative treatments. It also says that spontaneous remission of breast cancer, for example, is pretty rare.

3.) When cancer suddenly disappears, people may call it a miracle. But a recent study by three physician-researchers from DMS and Norway found that spontaneous remission of breast cancer is actually quite common. More than one in five invasive cancers detected in the study by mammography vanished without ever being treated

http://dartmed.dartmouth.edu/spring0..._remission.php


Ok, Christians. Your turn. Let's see the evidence for ONE modern miracle that has been examined and confirmed by scientists and physicians using the standards of investigation routinely used by these experts to verify any medical claim or treatment.

Yay, another popular article. And the study on which it is based doesn't actually demonstrate spontaneous remission; it just presumes that minor incidences of cancer which require a mammogram to detect can disappear. For a doctor, you sure rely overmuch on non-technical sources.

Of course, you also admit that spontaneous remission is rarely documented, and use that as a defense of not providing specific cases, then demand that we provide specific cases, when the same caveats would naturally apply. You're a trip, Gary.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Ok, so you believe that the resurrection of a dead first century body is more probable than that an exception occurred in first century Palestine to numerous generalizations. But would you agree that exceptions to every generalization regarding the beliefs and practices of first century Jews could possibly have occurred, and combined could explain the early Christian belief in a Resurrection?

Individually, they all could have. That they all just happened to occur suddenly around the life of Jesus? Yeah. That's getting into conspiracy theory thinking.

Take away a bias towards miracles and belief in the resurrection is quite simple.

[Gary]

Individually, they all could have. That they all just happened to occur suddenly around the life of Jesus? Yeah. That's getting into conspiracy theory thinking.

Take away a bias towards miracles and belief in the resurrection is quite simple.

Nick, upon what do you base your belief in the reality of the supernatural? You seem to believe that the probability of the Resurrection is high because you believe that the probability of miracles and the supernatural are high. But what evidence do you base this on if not on the Resurrection itself? If that is the case, isn't that begging the question?

[Gary]

The article is behind a paywall. Fittingly, it's the only actual medical article you linked to. Did Lola change her lifestyle, or accept any treatment? It's impossible to tell from what you posted.

This popular news article claims that most people who refuse traditional treatment attempt alternative treatments. It also says that spontaneous remission of breast cancer, for example, is pretty rare.

Yay, another popular article. And the study on which it is based doesn't actually demonstrate spontaneous remission; it just presumes that minor incidences of cancer which require a mammogram to detect can disappear. For a doctor, you sure rely overmuch on non-technical sources.

Of course, you also admit that spontaneous remission is rarely documented, and use that as a defense of not providing specific cases, then demand that we provide specific cases, when the same caveats would naturally apply. You're a trip, Gary.

Here some more reading material on this subject for you OBP:

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/101/4/225.long

http://www.amsj.org/archives/2450

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...92867410005659

https://www.researchgate.net/profile...e661a47047.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...O;2-Z/abstract

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...05737296900237

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...O;2-O/abstract

If you want more references regarding spontaneous cancer remissions, I can give you many more.

[psstein]

Would you agree that it is at least possible that the alleged appearances of the once dead Jesus were based on something other than the reality of a resurrected dead body actually physically presenting himself in front of them?

Yes, it's possible, but there are some significant issues with vision/hallucination theories...

[psstein]

I didn't want to quote your entire post because it's pretty long. You're a bit mistaken on Jewish afterlife thoughts and Jewish apocalypticism.

The Pharisees very decidedly believed in a life after death, not only in the resurrection at the end of time, but also in the immediate period after death. More importantly, however, they did not believe that people would be resurrected until the end of time. Yes, you could bring up what Herod Antipas says about John the Baptist, but there are some issues with that comparison. The Sadducees did not believe in either, so it's very dangerous to attempt to generalize Jewish resurrection belief and Jewish apocalypticism. The Qumran community seems to have believed something vaguely similar, though different.

The followers of Jesus didn't interpret visions of Jesus alone as resurrection. They interpreted it as YHWH acting miraculously in the world and signalling that the end of times was near. As the Apostle Paul says in 1 Thessalonians, Jesus is the first-fruits and the general resurrection will happen eventually (which is why I think 2 Thessalonians may be pseudonymous, but that's an entirely different story). You'd also have to explain why the apostles believe in a decidedly un-Jewish resurrection before the end of days, that is, before the Messianic age.

There's also the fact that nobody really anticipates the Messiah's death and humiliation (the earliest accounts of the burial strongly suggest it was not an honorable burial).

I don't deny that the apostles made sense of what had happened in view of 2nd Temple belief, nor do I deny that they tried to make sense of their experience via the OT. I don't think you can easily generalize and say "this must have been what happened," largely because Jewish afterlife beliefs were (and still are) complex.

[Gary]

Yes, it's possible, but there are some significant issues with vision/hallucination theories...

I realize that you believe that there are some serious problems with these theories, but you still admit that it is possible that they are the cause of the early Christian belief in the post-death appearances of Jesus, right? They are not impossible.

Here is what I am trying to get you and Nick to consider: If we can all agree that a natural explanation for the early Christian belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus is possible, then the next step is to try to reach an agreement on the probability of a natural explanation, which was a rare exception to generalizations regarding the behavior, attitudes, and beliefs of first century Jews, versus a miracle (or in my terminology, a supernatural event).

So how do we go about determining the probability of the reality of miracles/supernatural events? I would suggest that in order to determine the probability of any event, we first must establish, with good evidence, that such an event has happened at some time in the past. Without basing probability on past events, we are forced to simply state that "anything is possible, so everything is equally probable". But that isn't how we operate in regards to most situations in our lives, so why do it in this situation?

I believe that the only way for us to determine the probability of miracles/supernatural events is to find cases of such events that have been confirmed by rigorous scientific evaluation and testing. The question is, however, do such cases exist? If no such cases exist, only anecdotal claims, I am very curious about how exactly you both reach the conclusion that miracles are so highly probable.

Appealing to evidence for theism doesn't work, in my opinion, because one must consider the possibility that whomever is the Creator, created the universe initially by one "supernatural" act, but thereafter ordained that the universe operate strictly according to the laws of nature, and therefore, supernatural acts are non-existent either in our lives today or in the lives of any human being who has ever lived, including Jesus of Nazareth.

So how do you, Nick and Stein, calculate the probability of miracles without having confirmed evidence of their reality??

[Gary]

I didn't want to quote your entire post because it's pretty long. You're a bit mistaken on Jewish afterlife thoughts and Jewish apocalypticism.

The Pharisees very decidedly believed in a life after death, not only in the resurrection at the end of time, but also in the immediate period after death. More importantly, however, they did not believe that people would be resurrected until the end of time. Yes, you could bring up what Herod Antipas says about John the Baptist, but there are some issues with that comparison. The Sadducees did not believe in either, so it's very dangerous to attempt to generalize Jewish resurrection belief and Jewish apocalypticism. The Qumran community seems to have believed something vaguely similar, though different.

The followers of Jesus didn't interpret visions of Jesus alone as resurrection. They interpreted it as YHWH acting miraculously in the world and signalling that the end of times was near. As the Apostle Paul says in 1 Thessalonians, Jesus is the first-fruits and the general resurrection will happen eventually (which is why I think 2 Thessalonians may be pseudonymous, but that's an entirely different story). You'd also have to explain why the apostles believe in a decidedly un-Jewish resurrection before the end of days, that is, before the Messianic age.

There's also the fact that nobody really anticipates the Messiah's death and humiliation (the earliest accounts of the burial strongly suggest it was not an honorable burial).

I don't deny that the apostles made sense of what had happened in view of 2nd Temple belief, nor do I deny that they tried to make sense of their experience via the OT. I don't think you can easily generalize and say "this must have been what happened," largely because Jewish afterlife beliefs were (and still are) complex.

Stein: I didn't say any of this. I was quoting Bart Ehrman. Re-read my post above.

But I will add this comment: Why should we be surprised that a small group of first century Jews believed that Jesus had been resurrected...first...prior to the general resurrection...if that is exactly what Jesus had been telling them for the previous three years of his ministry??? So if you are one of Jesus' disciples, and you "see" him in a vivid dream, you would assume that you were seeing the "resurrected" Jesus, not a ghost or a figment of your imagination, because Jesus had told you that this is what would happen!

[psstein]

Stein: I didn't say any of this. I was quoting Bart Ehrman. Re-read my post above.

But I will add this comment: Why should we be surprised that a small group of first century Jews believed that Jesus had been resurrected...first...prior to the general resurrection...if that is exactly what Jesus had been telling them for the previous three years of his ministry??? So if you are one of Jesus' disciples, and you "see" him in a vivid dream, you would assume that you were seeing the "resurrected" Jesus, not a ghost or a figment of your imagination, because Jesus had told you that this is what would happen!

Didn't see that you were referencing Ehrman. My criticisms still hold, though.

I'm skeptical of the "Jesus predicted his resurrection" arguments. I don't think Licona really made his case in his article in The Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus. I think Jesus may have gone to Jerusalem knowing he would die.

[psstein]

I realize that you believe that there are some serious problems with these theories, but you still admit that it is possible that they are the cause of the early Christian belief in the post-death appearances of Jesus, right? They are not impossible.

Here is what I am trying to get you and Nick to consider: If we can all agree that a natural explanation for the early Christian belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus is possible, then the next step is to try to reach an agreement on the probability of a natural explanation, which was a rare exception to generalizations regarding the behavior, attitudes, and beliefs of first century Jews, versus a miracle (or in my terminology, a supernatural event).

So how do we go about determining the probability of the reality of miracles/supernatural events? I would suggest that in order to determine the probability of any event, we first must establish, with good evidence, that such an event has happened at some time in the past. Without basing probability on past events, we are forced to simply state that "anything is possible, so everything is equally probable". But that isn't how we operate in regards to most situations in our lives, so why do it in this situation?

I believe that the only way for us to determine the probability of miracles/supernatural events is to find cases of such events that have been confirmed by rigorous scientific evaluation and testing. The question is, however, do such cases exist? If no such cases exist, only anecdotal claims, I am very curious about how exactly you both reach the conclusion that miracles are so highly probable.

Appealing to evidence for theism doesn't work, in my opinion, because one must consider the possibility that whomever is the Creator, created the universe initially by one "supernatural" act, but thereafter ordained that the universe operate strictly according to the laws of nature, and therefore, supernatural acts are non-existent either in our lives today or in the lives of any human being who has ever lived, including Jesus of Nazareth.

So how do you, Nick and Stein, calculate the probability of miracles without having confirmed evidence of their reality??

Yes and no. I think that it's possible if we ignore other evidence, which makes it very unlikely.

The other issue is that I think you're attempting to subscribe to finite frequentism, whereas I think the correct approach would be Bayes' Theorem. Of course, I'm a guy who studies early Christianity/NT, not probability..

[Apologiaphoenix]

Nick, upon what do you base your belief in the reality of the supernatural? You seem to believe that the probability of the Resurrection is high because you believe that the probability of miracles and the supernatural are high. But what evidence do you base this on if not on the Resurrection itself? If that is the case, isn't that begging the question?

If you want to know why I hold to theism, as I do not use the term "supernatural" it is first off, because I think the theistic arguments are strong enough and I think atheism is a position that is just not tenable. If I hold to theism then, it's not much of a problem to go from there to thinking God could act in the life of Christ if He wanted to.

This is why metaphysics is so important.

[One Bad Pig]

I realize that you believe that there are some serious problems with these theories, but you still admit that it is possible that they are the cause of the early Christian belief in the post-death appearances of Jesus, right? They are not impossible.

I have yet to see any evidence that mass hallucination is possible; most of the post-resurrection appearances were to multiple people.

[One Bad Pig]

Here some more reading material on this subject for you OBP:

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/101/4/225.long

http://www.amsj.org/archives/2450

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...92867410005659

https://www.researchgate.net/profile...e661a47047.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...O;2-Z/abstract

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...05737296900237

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...O;2-O/abstract

If you want more references regarding spontaneous cancer remissions, I can give you many more.

Thanks, I'll take a look at these when I get a chance. The first one questions whether spontaneous regression is even possible. The one instance of breast cancer which I recall offhand is where a woman was diagnosed with stage 4 breast cancer. The recommended treatment was a double mastectomy. When the woman was re-tested the day before the scheduled surgery, she was completely cancer-free, without having tried any alternative treatment or lifestyle change.

The day before that, she had been anointed with myrrh exuded by an icon. The icon has been exuding myrrh for about 4.5 years now, at varying rates. The myrrh is exuded from the entire surface of the icon, and sometimes exudes from the casing which houses the icon as well. The priest to whom it belongs routinely takes it out of the case and carries it around so people can catch the myrrh as it drips off the icon. I've seen it several times up close. Many miraculous cures have been attributed to it, though I don't know the details of most of them.

[Gary]

If you want to know why I hold to theism, as I do not use the term "supernatural" it is first off, because I think the theistic arguments are strong enough and I think atheism is a position that is just not tenable. If I hold to theism then, it's not much of a problem to go from there to thinking God could act in the life of Christ if He wanted to.

This is why metaphysics is so important.

But as I mentioned before, theism does not guarantee that supernaturalism (events that violate the rules of nature) exists in our universe. Wouldn't you agree that it is in the realm of possibilities, that whomever created the universe used only one initial supernatural act to create, but thereafter, ordained that the universe would operate strictly by the laws of nature/science.

So given that possibility, how can you prove that the metaphysical/the supernatural/miracles exist(s) today or 2,000 years ago?