The Evidence Skeptics would like to see for the Resurrection Claim

[Meh Gerbil]

I don't find the burial in a tomb improbable at all.

I think he's claiming that it is improbable that Jesus was buried in a tomb given the fate of most crucifixion victims.
Divorced from all other context that seems to be a pretty solid claim.

For example, if 100,000 are crucified for treason and only 10 end up in a tomb then it would be true to say that a crucifixion victim ending up in a tomb is improbable (all other things being the same). From the perspective of calculating probability, entirely divorced from context, Gary's claim seems to have merit. His error isn't his math, but rather removing the claim of a tomb burial for a specific victim from it's context.

We aren't talking about the average crucifixion victim here so calculations that deal with averages have little bearing on the discussion.

This troll thread continues on because of the following dynamic:
1: Gary attempts to apply a mathematical probability to a specific example (Jesus Christ). This is a logical error.
2: When challenged he retreats to a claim of mathematical probability applied to generic crucifixion victims. This is logically correct.

So my agreement with his claim as applied to generic crucifixion victims is my attempt to break that cycle.

[Meh Gerbil]

Here is an example of Gary's argument:

1:The New York Daily News claims Chris Shaw won the Powerball Lottery (1).
2:The chances of winning the Powerball Lottery are 1:175,000,000.
3:It is improbable that Chris Shaw could win; therefore, it is silly to believe the New York Daily News account.

There are numerous logical fallacies with that argument and every time you try to point them out he runs back to #2 and cries about the math being correct as if that was the point of disagreement. As much fun as it is to watch these sorts of antics they do grow old after a spell, don't you think?




NOTES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...ticle-1.169060

[Adrift]

I think he's claiming that it is improbable that Jesus was buried in a tomb given the fate of most crucifixion victims.
Divorced from all other context that seems to be a pretty solid claim.

For example, if 100,000 are crucified for treason and only 10 end up in a tomb then it would be true to say that a crucifixion victim ending up in a tomb is improbable (all other things being the same). From the perspective of calculating probability, entirely divorced from context, Gary's claim seems to have merit. His error isn't his math, but rather removing the claim of a tomb burial for a specific victim from it's context.

We aren't talking about the average crucifixion victim here so calculations that deal with averages have little bearing on the discussion.

This troll thread continues on because of the following dynamic:
1: Gary attempts to apply a mathematical probability to a specific example (Jesus Christ). This is a logical error.
2: When challenged he retreats to a claim of mathematical probability applied to generic crucifixion victims. This is logically correct.

So my agreement with his claim as applied to generic crucifixion victims is my attempt to break that cycle.

Here is an example of Gary's argument:

1:The New York Daily News claims Chris Shaw won the Powerball Lottery (1).
2:The chances of winning the Powerball Lottery are 1:175,000,000.
3:It is improbable that Chris Shaw could win; therefore, it is silly to believe the New York Daily News account.

There are numerous logical fallacies with that argument and every time you try to point them out he runs back to #2 and cries about the math being correct as if that was the point of disagreement. As much fun as it is to watch these sorts of antics they do grow old after a spell, don't you think?




NOTES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...ticle-1.169060

Sure, we can deconstruct any situation and say that the particulars of that situation are unlikely.

What are the chances of any human being throughout time being crucified under Pontius Pilate? Practically zill. How bout a person in the first century? Odds better, but still not very good. Ok, how bout someone living in Palestine in the 1st century? Getting much closer, but still relatively rare. How bout someone from that time and place tried for treason against the Roman empire (per Sanders), or for being a public nuisance and potentially dangerous threat (though not treason, per Witherington)? Bingo.

Same for the burial in a tomb. By itself, anywhere else in the Roman empire, and at any other given time, crucified victims were likely left on a cross to be eaten by carrion birds, or thrown in a shallow pit with a bit of dirt to be eaten by dogs. But we have more than enough evidence to support that that wasn't the case with Jesus. We have multiple and early attestation. We have the asking of the body by a disciple who belonged to a powerful and influential religious body. We have the Jewish laws concerning proper burial of the dead (especially late on the Day of Preparation). We have Roman edicts recognizing Jewish custom. We have the criterion of embarrassment of the women discovering an empty tomb later on. And so on and so forth. So, yeah, I don't see any reason to grant that it was improbable given all we know.

[Meh Gerbil]

Sure, we can deconstruct any situation and say that the particulars of that situation are unlikely.

What are the chances of any human being throughout time being crucified under Pontius Pilate? Practically zill. How bout a person in the first century? Odds better, but still not very good. Ok, how bout someone living in Palestine in the 1st century? Getting much closer, but still relatively rare. How bout someone from that time and place tried for treason against the Roman empire (per Sanders), or for being a public nuisance and potentially dangerous threat (though not treason, per Witherington)? Bingo.

Same for the burial in a tomb. By itself, anywhere else in the Roman empire, and at any other given time, crucified victims were likely left on a cross to be eaten by carrion birds, or thrown in a shallow pit with a bit of dirt to be eaten by dogs. But we have more than enough evidence to support that that wasn't the case with Jesus. We have multiple and early attestation. We have the asking of the body by a disciple who belonged to a powerful and influential religious body. We have the Jewish laws concerning proper burial of the dead (especially late on the Day of Preparation). We have Roman edicts recognizing Jewish custom. We have the criterion of embarrassment of the women discovering an empty tomb later on. And so on and so forth.

However, as soon as you pull all of that out he retreats to a math formula and claims you don't like math.
I think we should agree with the math formula as an isolated factoid and move on.

[shunyadragon]

I don't find the burial in a tomb improbable at all. In fact, based on all of the evidence, and applying Occam's razor, the burial in the tomb is the only thing that makes sense. Asserting that the burial is improbable is a hackneyed attempt at weakening the entire narrative in order to prove the resurrection did not happen, and it just doesn't work.

I disagree that 'the burial in the tomb is the only thing that makes sense.' It is possible, but the most likely scenario is that the Romans did not allow the burial, because the crime was treason, and burial is very rare in this case.

[Adrift]

I disagree

Color me surprised.

It is possible, but the most likely scenario is that the Romans did not allow the burial, because the crime was treason, and burial is very rare in this case.

Source: The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth by Ben Witherington

Jesus was not seen by the Romans, or for that matter by the priestly authorities, as a revolutionary or military leader, for had that been the case his followers would very likely have been sought out and killed. He was rather seen as a present nuisance and a potentially dangerous threat, particularly if he was allowed to continue to act or teach in the temple precincts during a festival, remembering how volatile, vibrant and massive the crowd could be in Jerusalem during festival time. This makes it doubtful that Jesus had undertaken anything so drastic in Galilee as the reordering of society, and in particular of village life, along egalitarian lines. However, within his circle of followers he may well have reordered things to comport with his vision of the inbreaking kingdom.

© Copyright Original Source

[seanD]

I disagree that 'the burial in the tomb is the only thing that makes sense.' It is possible, but the most likely scenario is that the Romans did not allow the burial, because the crime was treason, and burial is very rare in this case.

Even if we assume burial was rare (which is simply not true), the typical mode of non burial by the Romans was leaving the corpse out to rot indefinitely. But the very first proclamation of the movement was that Jesus rose in three days. How do you suppose this proclamation flew in the face of a public that had witnessed Jesus' corpse outside Jerusalem rotting for weeks if not months? The proclamation would have been absurd.

[shunyadragon]

Color me surprised.

Source: The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth by Ben Witherington

Jesus was not seen by the Romans, or for that matter by the priestly authorities, as a revolutionary or military leader, for had that been the case his followers would very likely have been sought out and killed. He was rather seen as a present nuisance and a potentially dangerous threat, particularly if he was allowed to continue to act or teach in the temple precincts during a festival, remembering how volatile, vibrant and massive the crowd could be in Jerusalem during festival time. This makes it doubtful that Jesus had undertaken anything so drastic in Galilee as the reordering of society, and in particular of village life, along egalitarian lines. However, within his circle of followers he may well have reordered things to comport with his vision of the in breaking kingdom.

© Copyright Original Source

Jesus need not have had an army. He made the claim of being the Messiah and the King of the Jews, which is treason and punishable by crucifixion.

[Gary]

For the record I agree with you.
I agree there are more plausible explanations.

Got anything else to throw at me?

Nope. Nothing at all. I applaud your rationality and honesty!

---the Whigged One

[Gary]

I don't find the burial in a tomb improbable at all. In fact, based on all of the evidence, and applying Occam's razor, the burial in the tomb is the only thing that makes sense. Asserting that the burial is improbable is a hackneyed attempt at weakening the entire narrative in order to prove the resurrection did not happen, and it just doesn't work.

Now, I will grant that the resurrection itself is improbable depending on one's starting points. It depends entirely on one's presuppositions about the existence of the divine. If you accept the existence of divine being/s with the power to raise people from the dead, then the historicity of the resurrection fits like a hand in a glove. If you don't, then a lot of the details in the narrative are going to leave you scratching your head.

In their academic work, it seems most historians (regardless of where they fall on theological lines) push the actual miracle events to the side, concentrating instead on those facts they can discuss from a relatively naturalistic perspective. So, that's why in a lot of academic works, you'll see scholars sort of describing that the disciples witnessed...something (as we see above in E.P. Sanders list), but what they witnessed isn't as important in a purely academic work than that they acted as though they witnessed something.

This has all been hashed out with Gary already though. His reply was a confused mess of a theory that those who accept the resurrection do so through circular reasoning. That one only believes in God if they believe in the resurrection, and one only believes in the resurrection if they believe in God. Now that may have been how he came to belief in God, but it isn't how I did, or how most of the people on this forum have (as far as I know). We explained this to him, and then re-explained it to him, and re-explained it to him. Finally I posted the following,



Gary went into meltdown after that, and went into a vicious loop where he continued to reassert his claim that belief in God and belief in the resurrection is circular.

Would you or would you not agree that if the evidence demonstrates that it was NOT Roman custom, in Palestine, prior to the Wars, for Roman rulers to release the bodies of persons crucified to receive a proper burial; that doing so would have been a very rare and odd exception, especially in the case of someone crucified for high treason against Caesar, then it is more probable than not that Jesus was not buried in Arimathea's tomb?

[Adrift]

Jesus need not have had an army. He made the claim of being the Messiah and the King of the Jews, which is treason and punishable by crucifixion.

[Gary]

I think he's claiming that it is improbable that Jesus was buried in a tomb given the fate of most crucifixion victims.
Divorced from all other context that seems to be a pretty solid claim.

For example, if 100,000 are crucified for treason and only 10 end up in a tomb then it would be true to say that a crucifixion victim ending up in a tomb is improbable (all other things being the same). From the perspective of calculating probability, entirely divorced from context, Gary's claim seems to have merit. His error isn't his math, but rather removing the claim of a tomb burial for a specific victim from it's context.

We aren't talking about the average crucifixion victim here so calculations that deal with averages have little bearing on the discussion.

This troll thread continues on because of the following dynamic:
1: Gary attempts to apply a mathematical probability to a specific example (Jesus Christ). This is a logical error.
2: When challenged he retreats to a claim of mathematical probability applied to generic crucifixion victims. This is logically correct.

So my agreement with his claim as applied to generic crucifixion victims is my attempt to break that cycle.

Although I resent the troll inference terribly...I like your logic.

All bets are off when it comes to the probability of the bodily disposition of one specific first century man crucified by the Romans. Anything could have happened. But we can say, with a high degree of confidence, that based on the evidence, it is highly improbable that ANY first century, non-Roman-citizen, living in Palestine under Roman rule, crucified for high treason against Caesar, would have been allowed a proper burial in a Jewish rock tomb. It is much more probable that Romans disposed of the body in the usual Roman fashion: they unceremoniously tossed it and the bodies of the two thieves into an unmarked common grave and covered them over with dirt.

If Nick and Adrift will admit that is the case, then I will promise to leave TW and never come back.

[Meh Gerbil]

Nope. Nothing at all. I applaud your rationality and honesty!

---the Whigged One

Do you ever look around and ask yourself, "Am I the only rational person on earth?"
I ask myself that at least a dozen times a day.

[Adrift]

Would you or would you not agree that if the evidence demonstrates that it was NOT Roman custom, in Palestine, prior to the Wars, for Roman rulers to release the bodies of persons crucified to receive a proper burial; that doing so would have been a very rare and odd exception, especially in the case of someone crucified for high treason against Caesar, then it is more probable than not that Jesus was not buried in Arimathea's tomb?

I'm at liberty to not grant that hypothetical. The evidence demonstrates that the Romans did release bodies of executed persons to the Israelites for proper burial, and as Evans observes, Jesus was likely not condemned for high teason.

[Gary]

Do you ever look around and ask yourself, "Am I the only rational person on earth?"
I ask myself that at least a dozen times a day.

Not in the real world. Where I live, I am in the majority; the overwhelming majority. People like Nick, Adrift, and Littlepix are seen as religious extremists and avoided like the plague.

But on TW, I often have that feeling. Yes.