I think that you are overthinking it. Whether or not the Resurrection of Jesus Christ occurred is the event about which the probability conversation is taking place. Was Jesus raised from the dead? Yes or no? That’s the issue.
Okay, but operationally speaking, The Resurrection literally means that Jesus was raised by God. It does not mean Jesus was raised by a god, or space aliens, or Richard Dawkins. So, then, to be accurate, the discussion should be phrased differently, because you cannot have The Resurrection without God.
I agree that is the issue, but we really do have to look at what the cause was. Remember, the case for the resurrection rests on testimonial evidence that is interpreted to constitute a resurrection.
But nobody was present in the tomb to see what happened. Jesus is interpreted to have died on the cross (he was seen crucified and stabbed), his presumed tomb is discovered to be empty, then later Jesus is claimed to have been seen alive.
That’s the purported evidence we have before us which we are trying to explain. Not God resurrecting Jesus, that’s not the evidence we have. Nobody saw that happen.
The evidence we have is pieces of text wherein it says that someone saw Jesus get crucified and stabbed on the cross, and then his putative tomb was discovered empty by some women, and then pieces of text wherein it says someone saw Jesus alive walking around and talking.
Nobody (that we know of) saw what happened in the tomb. Even if God really did resurrect Jesus while in that tomb, it’s not clear that having been present in the tomb to see Jesus suddenly come alive would in any way show God being present and somehow willing Jesus back to life. It’s not clear what that would have looked like, if God’s presence in the tomb could even be seen. Maybe Jesus just suddenly sat up and walked out, with no apparent cause.
So no, the resurrection is not just about God. God is one among many conceivable explanations for the evidence we have.
I completely disagree, which is why you have seen me use the phrase “Jesus coming back alive from being dead”, instead of describing it as The Resurrection.
The evidence we have is not The Resurrection. The evidence we have is putative testimonials of
Jesus being crucified and stabbed with a spear.
Jesus tomb being discovered empty.
Jesus later walking around alive, speaking to people.
That’s interpreted to be God resurrecting Jesus while he was still in the tomb, after he had been buried.
I’m making a point regarding the semantics, not the validity of any single argument. It is fine to look at the cause if you would like to do so… You are correct to describe it as you have when you said “Jesus coming back from the dead” because “The Resurrection” is a label that pertains specifically to God, the Father, raising His Son, Jesus, from the dead.
This could be so for “the resurrection” but not so for “The Resurrection.”
Well, that’s partly true. If you are skeptic, it is true, because you are looking at it from a hard data perspective. Christians believe in The Resurrection because Jesus is alive. Paul did not believe in Jesus Christ because he thought The Resurrection to be valid, he believed because Jesus was alive. He encountered Jesus. So, we may articulate (often poorly, often not) to skeptics that it is reasonable to believe in The Resurrection, but it is not the primary reason why we believe.
But, honestly, if Jesus was resurrected, would you believe that it was for any cause other than God having raised him from the dead?
@DaleCutler You have to admit that it is a tough chasm to cross. Further, let me admit that, while I can see the validity of The Resurrection from my perspective, it is the personal knowledge that allows me to accept it. Apart from the personal knowledge, I can see (and even remember) that it was a challenging obstacle indeed.
Depends on the nature of the evidence. The evidence for Jesus having come back alive would have to be more more likely on the hypothesis that God exists, than on any competing hypothesis. I’d have to see the case for different hypotheses to be sure, but I’m certainly not ruling out a priori that God’s existence could be the hypothesis most likely to produce the evidence.
@Faizal_Ali That’s a fair question. In my opinion, (and I state that strongly) one can believe that the resurrection occurred or that it is plausible that it occurred, based upon the evidence, but, like so many things, it falls short of conclusive proof. God speaks of faith being required. I think that it takes a leap of faith to get to the point where you can experience the living Christ. That said, for me personally, it was evidence that got me to that point. It was the behavior of the disciples after the Crucifixion and the explosive growth of the church that gave me the impetus to make a leap of faith.
That said, it gets expressed as though it were a math equation and it is not. It is different for all. If you are looking for hard evidence to prove beyond a doubt to yourself that Jesus is alive, you are probably not going to find it. If you are looking for enough evidence to justify the leap of faith, I believe it is there.
I would add that most of us will say and have said the same thing. It is reasonable to believe in The Resurrection. Christianity was never about an equation. It was always about a relationship.
There is enough evidence to be consistent with material reality from beginning to end, the end that is sure to come and for which we already have corresponding evidence between scripture and nature. That is also enough evidence that it should make those who have concluded that God does not exist doubt their faith in that conclusion.
If I was one of the faithful, as I am now, I’m sure it would be a paradox. Nothing is “rationally” worth facing the Lions in the colleseum, as did the early church. Nothing. Yet, I might have found something worth facing the Lions, whether it be rational or not.
Assigning probabilities to events we cannot define isn’t going to get us anywhere. What is a Resurrection? Jesus was “dead in one moment and alive in the next” describes the result, but not the event itself (which was unobserved).
