Great question. If we are to research what happened to Jesus, then the sources which would be most reliable would be the manuscripts which are closest or oldest to his alleged existence. If we were to research the works of Aristotle or Caesar, we would do the same thing. Interestingly there are copious amounts of manuscripts for the alleged existence of Jesus. Not just close in times of date but also multiple copies of similar documents. For those interested in ancient documents - the narratives around the life of Jesus are quite extraordinary.
Can you give some examples of these sources? I am of course not asking for anything unduly extensive, but manuscripts that support biblical claims of miracles and divine acts would be welcome. I personally see little issue with claims that a Jesus existed, or that he was Crucified.
Beyond his baptism and crucifixion there seems to be little of Jesus' life that is accepted by a wide range of historical scholars. So I'd be interested in some sources you'd suggest that clarify these details.
As for the persecution of Christians, I am again less than versed in the subject than I might like, day to day life gives less time to read than I might like. That said, I do find the idea put forward by some that the early Roman church muddied a lot of our historical records seems reasonable.
The spread of Christianity is interesting, but then Buddhism and and Islam also showed rapid spread if I'm not mistaken. I can certainly see an appeal in Christianities claims of eternal salvation which many religions are less clear. Again, I am always interested in reading material people might suggest.
I take the view that when it comes to understanding the resurrection of Jesus - that the biggest hurdle people have is God not facts. If you don't believe in God, then the resurrection becomes an impossibility, no matter what the facts ought to lead us to conclude.
You aren't concerned that by accepting the existence of God as true leads to a bias? That the spread of Christianity was quick and impressive isn't really the question. The real questions are why did Christianity spread so well, what factors can we attribute to this spread and how does this support the claims put forward by Christianity? Does it really follow that people believing the claims makes them valid? Buddism went from Buddha to being the dominant religion of the Mauryan Empire within a few short centuries after all.
In other words, facts become a side issue - to what we "know with our own experience". This is where many atheists tend to fall down.
I have to disagree here. I feel the issue is more connecting proposed facts to proposed conclusions. To give an example. I won't argue the spread of Christianity is an interesting and remarkable event. However, I don't take that fact to conclude that it's claims are true and see no logical reason to do so.
You can't beat something with nothing. In other words, historians of all positions accept something extraordinary happened in history that took a new Jewish cult in the backwaters of the world from almost next to nothing with few subscribers to a cult that within a couple of hundred years - had captured a very large proportion of the Roman empire. This occurred in a time while Christianity was still illegal and participants could very much expect to be sentenced to death. The question is what happened?
Firstly, that is a very good question. If we had a solid answer for that we'd likely have far less reason for discussion. That said, the contrarian in me has taken an interest in books and papers that question the extent of Christian persecution. My understanding is that it was fairly late... I am tempted to say late 3rd Century, that there were any laws passed that made persecution of Christians a widespread and legally supported act (the exception being Tacticus, but there are disputing theories on how much that was aimed at Christianity and how much it was aimed at finding a scspegoat/arsonist, I don't have enough information at present to dismiss either position). Yet even the Diocletianic persecution targeted those unwilling to sacrifice to the Imperial Cult, rather than Christians in particular. Which also reminds me of Manichaeism which while not surviving spread incredibly quickly despite being younger and just as victimised by Diocletianic persecution. All this often leads me to question more 'why do religions spread so quickly' and 'Why did Christianity manage to survive.' while both interesting questions, I'm not convinced they support the validity of the religions claims so much as the appeal of those claims.
When all of the varied theories put forward to the questions around the death and resurrection are considered - and weighted against plausibility. Against likelihood. Against possibilities, the preponderance of evidence is significant. I think overwhelming. For me - the resurrection of Jesus is not something I believe in faith. In fact I would counsel against Christians to believe such in faith. It is a historical fact for the church.
This I can't quite agree with. I find the questions fascinating, but as of yet, unanswered. Are you proposing that the fact people believed a claim (even to the point of facing persecution and death) is evidence of the claims validity?
Hence the answer to your last questions is FACTS should have us arrive at that conclusion. We ought not let the bias and assumptions we have either in the belief or the disbelief of God come into it.
I agree completely.
For there not to be a resurrection, requires a better, more plausible explanation. At this point in time, that still remains remarkably missing. Many people account for some part of the question - but NOT one takes into the account the entirety of the story. Where is the body? Why were there so many actual witnesses of the resurrection - who were prepared to die - if they knew it was a lie or a conspiracy? What caused the exponential growth of the church - that has so baffled historians?
I would disagree. I would argue that a lack of an answer doesn't on its own make other answers more valid.
The questions are good ones, yet even if the ressurection would answer them all, that alone hardly seems to be reason to accept the ressurection as fact. Occam's razor is a fine principle, but it is hardly a universal principle. If the simple answer requires something extraordinary enough that we have no other documented account of such a thing happening in literally billions of cases, then being intensely sceptical seems reasonable.
Why did Christianity spread so fast? Manicheaism spread to be a primary contender with Christianity, despite similar persecution and not beginning until the third century I believe. This would suggest a faster growth than Christianity. Buddhism spread with incredible speed as well, becoming a state within a few centuries of its inception.
What happened to the body? Not a clue, I haven't read any accounts from authors who I have reason to believe were there, so such deductions seem difficult if not impossible.
As for why they would martyr themselves for a lie or conspiracy. I would say they wouldn't, but how do we know what they did Martyr themselves for didn't require a lie and/or a conspiracy?
You say you can't beat something with nothing. This implies an answer should be accepted unless it can be disproven. I would say the reverse is true. An answer is valid once it. Can be shown to be a plausible explanation for a question.
I'm not ready to take an explanation that goes against all human experience as true without some very serious backing. The questions of:
why did Christianity spread so quickly?
Why were people willing to die for a lie/conspiracy?
and
what happened to a body?
Don't seem suitable reasons to believe a person rose from the dead, at least not without very extensive accounts of said ressurection. This is why I ask what sources you'd suggest, because I need a lot more to convince me than the biblical texts and the fact that some people were committed enough to a cause to die for it.
