[Green Knight]

Big difference whether a man existed and if whether he was resurrected from the dead. If you're looking for evidence of that having happened, you gotta set the bar just a wee bit higher than if you're trying to figure if a man actually lived.

[Long Cut]

Seems to me that a historian, at least a decent one, must concern himself only with facts, those things either proven or provable. Absent those, he must then utilize the most likely story extant, until such time as he has facts to either confirm or deny the original history. That, quite simply, is the scientific method.

The available records clearly show that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified for political and religious crimes by the Roman govenment of the period. Thus, historians are perfectly within their craft to state so.

The questions of his "dying for our sins", or "the Resurrection" are only testified to as fact in the Bible and by those faithful to it. While fine for them, this does not meet the standards of proof required for history's sake. That is hardly a blasphemous statement, as truth cannot be blasphemous.

One can debate history or one can debate theology. One cannot debate both at once, as there are completely differing standards of proof for both. One does NOT, in all cases, invalidate the other.

Religious dogma CAN be useful to the science of history, as it can provide possibilities which can be investigated of unexplained events. History, likewise, can be of value to the religious, in telling the tales of religious figures as actual events, and their signifigance to the world at large.

No one, no historian, could deny, for example, the impact that Jesus had upon world history. They must, however, explain that impact by what is recorded as provable fact. Alas, faith, however strong, cannot meet this requirement.

Slinging the "blasphemer!" tag around too readily only burdens those seeking objective truth, and comes too close to the refusal to see, or look upon such truth. What can be so frightening about it, that the eyes must be shut?

[B-Chan]

To be honest, I've neve understood the whole "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" thing with regards to history. What exactly constitutes "extraordinary evidence"? Eyewitness testimony? There were eyewitnesses (over 500 individuals that we know of) to the fact that Christ was up and walking around after His death. Not only did many of these eyewitnesses attest to seeing Him die, and then appear again alive, but many also reported seeing Him perform acts both miraculous (appearing suddenly in locked rooms, etc.) and mundane (eating and cooking fish).

How can one set a higher bar than that? What kind of evidence would one have to produce -- a working videotape of Christ coming out of the tomb? A signed affadvit from Jesus Himself? What? -- to make the case?

The witneses to Socrates' death reported what they saw. So did the witnesses to Christ's death and resurrection. The difference is that the witnesses to Jesus' resurrection were each tortured to death rather than deny that they saw what they saw. There is more historical evidence to support the death and resuurection of Jesus Christ than there is to support the merely physical life of the Sage of Athens -- and we may confidently accept both as truth.