Andrew:
I’m talking specifically about Krishna and Arjuna. I assume you don’t believe that Krishna is a deity – but why not? We have a story of Krishna’s conversation with Arjuna, and it takes place during a battle that is historically real.
My point is that stories – even stories that have some basis in historical fact – aren’t necessarily themselves true and can contain myths that have been built on fact.
“I am arguing that Krishna is not a myth, and is different from all other mythical founders of religions in that he was a historical figure and he preached a unique message of liberation by union with the Godhead that is he and simultaneous engagement with the world that is also he.”
Every myth has unique aspects – otherwise we wouldn’t be able to distinguish them from one another. You can’t select one myth’s unique aspects and use those to argue that the myth is not a myth.
I certainly don’t require 100% proof of anything (I don’t need, for example, 100% proof that a chair is sturdy in order to believe that it’s safe to sit on). But some evidence would be nice, and not just special pleading, ignoring the possibility that Christ is a legend, and arguing against points I haven’t made.
On the latter point I was not merely arguing from faith but was also pointing to works that rely on historical evidence for Christ and his Resurrection. That’s why I linked to N.T. Wright:
It will be obvious that I have dealt with only a tiny fraction of the theories that have been advanced as to what happened at Easier, but I hope I have said enough to show that the proponents of any theory that the body of Jesus remained in the tomb while the early Christians said the resurrection had occurred have a formidable task ahead of them, simply in terms of first-century history. What we find, rather, is the universal early Christian claim that Jesus had gone, as it were, through death and out the other side, that he was not just in some intermediate state or wine disembodied existence, but that his body had been transformed m a way for which they, his followers, had been quite unprepared, but with which they had had to come co terms. And they gave this as the reason why they believed his kingdom-announcement had indeed reached its climax, its fulfillment, in his death and resurrection. They gave this as the reason why they continued to regard him as Messiah despite his shameful death. They gave this as the reason for saying that “the resurrection” had in principle already happened. What is more, they wove this belief so firmly into their theology, their praxis, their stories, aid their symbols that (unless we are prepared to stop writing history and start writing fantasy instead) we cannot envisage their communal life without it.
I propose, therefore, as the result of this broad-canvas treatment of second- Temple Judaism and early Christianity, that there is in fact no other solution to the historical problem than to conclude that something remarkable had happened to the body of Jesus.
You’d probably need to read the full article.
ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Historical_Problem.htm
Also:
Historical investigation, I propose, brings us to the point where we must say that the tomb previously housing a thoroughly dead Jesus was empty, and that his followers saw and met someone they were convinced was this same Jesus, bodily alive though in a new, transformed fashion. The empty tomb on the one hand and the convincing appearances of Jesus on the other are the two conclusions the historian must draw. I do not think that history can force us to draw any particular further deductions beyond these two phenomena; the conclusion the disciples drew is there for the taking, but it is open to us, as it was to them, to remain cautious. Thomas waited a week before believing what he had been told. On Matthew’s mountain, some had their doubts.
However, the elegance and simplicity of explaining the two outstanding phenomena, the empty tomb and the visions, by means of one another, ought to be obvious. Were it not for the astounding, and world-view-challenging, claim that is thereby made, I think everyone would long since have concluded that this was the correct historical result. If some other account explained the rise of Christianity as naturally, completely and satisfyingly as does the early Christians’ belief, while leaving normal worldviews intact, it would be accepted without demur.
That, I believe, is the result of the investigation I have conducted. There are many other things to say about Jesus’ resurrection. But, as far as I am concerned, the historian may and must say that all other explanations for why Christianity arose, and why it took the shape it did, are far less convincing as historical explanations than the one the early Christians themselves offer: that Jesus really did rise from the dead on Easter morning, leaving an empty tomb behind him. The origins of Christianity, the reason why this new movement came into being and took the unexpected form it did, and particularly the strange mutations it produced within the Jewish hope for resurrection and the Jewish hope for a Messiah, are best explained by saying that something happened, two or three days after Jesus’ death, for which the accounts in the four gospels are the least inadequate expression we have.
Of course, there are several reasons why people may not want, and often refuse, to believe this. But the historian must weigh, as well, the alternative accounts they themselves offer. And, to date, none of them have anything like the explanatory power of the simple, but utterly challenging, Christian one. The historian’s task is not to force people to believe. It is to make it clear that the sort of reasoning historians characteristically employ — inference to the best explanation, tested rigorously in terms of the explanatory power of the hypothesis thus generated — points strongly towards the bodily resurrection of Jesus; and to make clear, too, that from that point on the historian alone cannot help. When you’re dealing with worldviews, every community and every person must make their choices in the dark, even if there is a persistent rumour of light around the next corner.
ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesus_Resurrection.htm
And I am not just resorting to special pleading. I have read and studied Hinduism but feel Christianity has the fuller Truth and many things in Hinduism I cannot accept rationally. But I’ve explained that on other threads and won’t take up space here. The choice to believe in Christ specifically can be a rational choice as well. If you’re interested in the historicity of Christ and the Resurrection please read the aforementioned two articles since you requested some historical, empirical explanations.
