Jesus Resurrection

[lukethethird]

By that standard we should reject everything it says, plus reject all historical documents.

Either believe it or be forced to believe a giant conspiracy theory.

In other words, believe that someone wrote a story and that every word of the story is true, or believe that someone wrote a story.

 

[Prometheus85]

Jesus had been telling his disciples he was going to die. He predicted his death to them numerious times.

Plus, peter after he fled is mentioned to be following at a distence right up in the courtyard.

Plus the disciples met the woman and the woman let them know about where to go to meet him after he rose. So, they knew he was crucified. I mean, how could they not know that? Even enemy sources outside the bible say he was crucified. Also joseph of arimathia put him in a tomb. So, he saw.

Plus luke says that all who knew him wer present INCLUDING the woman.

Also peter after hearing the report from the woman that he rose, got up and went to the tomb to inspect.

Also in johns gospel, john and peter go to the tomb and john is at the cross where hes crucified.

So, i dont see the issue of them not being able to "KNOW" this stuff.

1. Jesus predicted his death not resurrection and Peter’s response to Jesus’ first such about his death is to rebuke him. Jesus then calls Peter “Satan” (Mark 8:31-33). And there is nothing implausible about Jesus foreseeing death as at least a real possibility because he was a wanted man.

But what about the women? They were there. The two Marys saw the crucifixion, they saw Jesus die, they saw the burial in the stone tomb, they saw the empty tomb, and they saw the risen Jesus. They were part of the inner circle, and surely their word was good enough.

The first problem is that the author of Matthew is still not an eyewitness. As I said before. At best, he simply reported a story he’d been told. But here’s the thing, The different accounts of the resurrection are full of contradictions. They can’t even agree on whether Jesus was crucified on the day before Passover (John) or the day after (the other three).

• Who buried Jesus? Matthew says (because The scared, scattered, skeptical disciples make no effort to give Jesus a proper burial) that it was Joseph of Arimathea. No, apparently it was the Jews and their rulers, all strangers to Jesus and the ones that sentenced him to die (Acts).

• Did the women tell the disciples? Matthew and Luke make clear that they did so immediately. But Mark says, “Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.” And that’s where the book ends, which makes it a mystery how Mark thinks that the resurrection story ever got out.

And the irony of you mentioning peter was following Jesus at a distance (the night he was arrested) was what peter was doing the entire time Jesus was alive...Following him form a distance. Jesus even calls him out on it "GET BEHIND ME SATAN"

WHY HE PETER LINGERED

Jesus didn't do what he thought he would do. He had just cut a man's ear off defending Jesus. peter thought Jesus would overthrow the Roman yoke and sit on David's throne. Peter may have professed his alligance to Jesus, yet he was always skeptical and followed from a distance.

 

[ObjectOfMercy]

I have evidence that Jesus Christ is alive. He is formed in me. He is formed in my brothers. He quickened us, made us alive together with Him. He ever lives to make intercession for us. He has visited me. He visited me at first when He saved me, and He made God known to me. He taught me good doctrine and the Holy Spirit brings His words to my remembrance. He is still saving people. How can a dead man save others? But Jesus lives and saves even til this very day! Not only that, but being God in human flesh, He cannot die. God cannot be held by death. He did die, but as Peter says in Acts 2, it was impossible that He should be held by it.

Acts 2
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have evidence that Jesus Christ is alive. He is formed in me. He is formed in my brothers. He quickened us, made us alive together with Him. He ever lives to make intercession for us. He has visited me. He visited me at first when He saved me, and He made God known to me. He taught me good doctrine and the Holy Spirit brings His words to my remembrance. He is still saving people. How can a dead man save others? But Jesus lives and saves even til this very day! Not only that, but being God in human flesh, He cannot die. God cannot be held by death. He did die, but as Peter says in Acts 2, it was impossible that He should be held by it.

Acts 2
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

And I have evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Invisible Pink Unicorn are alive. Your "evidence" is no better than my "evidence". And the heaven of the Flying Spaghetti Monster beats your heaven hands down. I guess that makes me the winner!

 

[ObjectOfMercy]

I have no need to try to win debates of any kind. God's witness to my soul is enough for me. Christ's people will hear His voice and the preaching of His Word by His disciples, and those which are not Christ's will not hear. It's as simple as that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have no need to try to win debates of any kind. God's witness to my soul is enough for me. Christ's people will hear His voice and the preaching of His Word by His disciples, and those which are not Christ's will not hear. It's as simple as that.

It sounds as if you may be delusional. You should try to learn what sort of evidence is reliable and what evidence is not.

Mere belief never defeats knowledge.

 

[ObjectOfMercy]

Without faith it is impossible to please God.

Hebrews 11:6
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Without faith it is impossible to please God.

Hebrews 11:6
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Circular reasoning is failed reasoning. Try again.

 

[lukethethird]

I have no need to try to win debates of any kind. God's witness to my soul is enough for me. Christ's people will hear His voice and the preaching of His Word by His disciples, and those which are not Christ's will not hear. It's as simple as that.

Trolling for Christ, what next?

 

[Apologes]

It sounds as if you may be delusional. You should try to learn what sort of evidence is reliable and what evidence is not.

Mere belief never defeats knowledge.

He may be delusional but what evidence do you have that he is? If an experience of God seems genuine enough to him then it is sufficient to warrant his belief in God. It is not up to him to doubt his experience of God by default just as one wouldn't doubt their experience of the external world by default. If you wish him to reject that experience and seek something else, provide an argument that would make him doubt it. It is unlikely that you'll be able to present any that doesn't at the same time undercut our other experiences.

Of course, that is all if his experience is indeed as strong as he claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He may be delusional but what evidence do you have that he is? If an experience of God seems genuine enough to him then it is sufficient to warrant his belief in God. It is not up to him to doubt his experience of God by default just as one wouldn't doubt their experience of the external world by default. If you wish him to reject that experience and seek something else, provide an argument that would make him doubt it. It is unlikely that you'll be able to present any that doesn't at the same time undercut our other experiences.

Of course, that is all if his experience is indeed as strong as he claims.

His similarity to modern delusional theists. His "road to Damascus story" (one that falls apart when analyzed) is an admission of seeing a hallucination. By the way, I did show that there was a difference in his account. In case you missed it I quoted the verses that showed the difference, @Jollybear found a translation where those differences were "corrected" and he claimed there were not there. He never could admit that I was correct when I said that there were differences.

If a modern person has an "experience of God seems genuine enough to him then it is sufficient to warrant his belief in God" is a rather strange criterion. Delusional people today are recognized as such. What you are trying to do here is to shift the burden of proof since the Christians cannot support their claims. Try to look at this as if it were a Muslim making those claims to you. You would rightfully put that burden of proof upon the Muslim.

 

[Apologes]

If a modern person has an "experience of God seems genuine enough to him then it is sufficient to warrant his belief in God" is a rather strange criterion. Delusional people today are recognized as such.

Why would it be a strange criterion? Delusional people aren't the only ones recognized as such (by whom anyway?) as everyone but the hardest of skeptics believes that their experiences are representative of the way reality is.

What you are trying to do here is to shift the burden of proof since the Christians cannot support their claims.

No, I'm applying the same way we treat our confidence in the reliability of other experiences most take for granted to the kind of religious experience @ObjectOfMercy claims to have as no real disanalogy has been presented.

Try to look at this as if it were a Muslim making those claims to you. You would rightfully put that burden of proof upon the Muslim.

ObjectOfMercy hasn't presented his experience as a way to persuade you (or at least I haven't seen that) but to explain why he doesn't need arguments to be persuaded as his experience is enough for him to believe as he does.

Given how an outsider doesn't have access to the experience in question, they would need something more but the person experiencing would be warranted in believing as they do.

So if a Muslim comes with a claim of a religious experience of Allah as means of persuading me, I would demand more.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would it be a strange criterion? Delusional people aren't the only ones recognized as such (by whom anyway?) as everyone but the hardest of skeptics believes that their experiences are representative of the way reality is.



No, I'm applying the same way we treat our confidence in the reliability of other experiences most take for granted to the kind of religious experience @ObjectOfMercy claims to have as no real disanalogy has been presented.



ObjectOfMercy hasn't presented his experience as a way to persuade you (or at least I haven't seen that) but to explain why he doesn't need arguments to be persuaded as his experience is enough for him to believe as he does.

Given how an outsider doesn't have access to the experience in question, they would need something more but the person experiencing would be warranted in believing as they do.

So if a Muslim comes with a claim of a religious experience of Allah as means of persuading me, I would demand more.

Yet those that "hear God" being delusional seems to be the norm and not the exception. I do not know of any reliable cases where people heard God, but there are all sorts of crazies that have. And yes, the burden of proof is being shifted. Since I can show case after case of people hearing God, and almost all of them contradict others so they have to be wrong unless God tells people contradictory things for fun, and Christians cannot seem to find any cases it is an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

I did not even mention the weak attempts of OoM. Let's ignore him for now.

But at least you can see that a Muslim would need to present evidence, No reliable evidence has been presented for the Christian side here, only very weak apologetics and attempts to shift the burden of proof.

 

[Quagmire]

The bible refers to alot of persecution going on too. So, just because it dont mention everyones myrters dont mean a whole lot.

It means that this:

If you have never seen the evidence that the apostles died for their belief in the resurrection of
Jesus, then you have never read the bible and you are arguing out of sheer ignorance to the scriptures.

. . .was an unfair statement.

To point it out is straining at straws.

Not at all.

The church fathers mention peter and pauls myrter, thats not just church tradition.

Considering that, with the exception of Clement, these church fathers were writing centuries after the fact, they were almost certainly just perpetuating an already existing tradition.

The bible mentions stephens death and john the baptists death.

Neither of whom were one of the twelve apostles, which is what were talking about here.

Gospel of John predicts peters death.

The gospel of John says this:
John 21:18
18 Very truly, I tell you, when you were younger, you used to fasten your own belt and to go wherever you wished. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will fasten a belt around you and take you where you do not wish to go.

IMO, interpreting this as a prediction of a crucifixion is "straining at straws".

James son of zebadee death mentioned by church father and Josephus.

We don't know which James Josephus was referring to here, but we do know it wasn't James son of Zebedee. The James mentioned by Josephus had a brother named Jesus. The apostle James didn't.

Theres other sources too. Heres a article that cites them.

http://www.equip.org/article/apostles-really-die-martyrs-faith/

Thanks. Might read through that later if I get the chance.

 

[leroy]

No,the amount of evidence demanded varies upon the claim. We went over this. There are independent sources that confirm Caesar's existence. There is a smidge of independent sources that confirm the existence of Jesus. There are no independent sources that tell us of his resurrection.

So

1 Define independent

2 Provide Independent sources for the existence of Julio Cesar

 

[leroy]

And the video is just grasping at straws. There is no real scholarship to it at all. The one case where there is no real doubt that Luke's tale was false. At least try to find a source based on some sort of scholarship if you want to be taken seriouisly.

Well, at worst it could be said that we don’t know where Jesus was born. For me this is not a big deal.

Historians don’t know for certain where was Christopher Columbus born, but nobody makes a big deal, and that doesn’t invalidate the things that we do know about Columbus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So

1 Define independent

2 Provide Independent sources for the existence of Julio Cesar

You seem to be admitting that you do not even understand basic English. Since we are talking about independent sources the sources cannot rely on each other. Or for that matter they cannot have a condition placed upon them that they agree with each other. The first condition tells us that none of the three synoptic gospels are not independent since they all rely on Mark heavily. And even John is no longer thought to be an independent source:

Gospel of John - Wikipedia

Also since the books of the Bible were eliminated from consideration if they disagreed with each other that makes none of the books of the Bible "independent". Real historians do not do that. Even more so they do not go out of their way to destroy disagreeing works which early Christians did.

And for Caesar I will let this site do my talking for me. They compare the evidence for Caesar compared to the evidence for Jesus. You picked a rather poor example:

Did Julius Caesar Exist? – Yes But No evidence of Jesus Christ

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, at worst it could be said that we don’t know where Jesus was born. For me this is not a big deal.

Historians don’t know for certain where was Christopher Columbus born, but nobody makes a big deal, and that doesn’t invalidate the things that we do know about Columbus.

Actually it is rather clear that Luke made up his nativity. That he was called "Jesus of Nazareth" which was known to be in Galilee at a time when traveling was much more limited than today gives us a rather good idea of where he came from. And of course Matthew's account breaks down as well when investigated, just not as badly. No recorded "death of the innocents" how a star is supposed to single out one house is never explained.

 

[Apologes]

I do not know of any reliable cases where people heard God, but there are all sorts of crazies that have.

It is unlikely that you have access to any records that would establish @ObjectOfMercy as mentally ill so your dismissive attitude is about as unpersuasive to a Christian as is one's religious experience to you.

And yes, the burden of proof is being shifted. Since I can show case after case of people hearing God, and almost all of them contradict others so they have to be wrong unless God tells people contradictory things for fun,

Now why do you think those two are the only explanations for contradictory religious experiences? It's rather amusing how atheists so often tend to see belief in God as one particular set of dogma or nothing at all. While I myself am not a universalist, why think God is not revealing himself in different religious experiences for different purposes or that there is a degree to which subjective human nature tends to cloud the experience?

Be that as it may, that would at best leave the people having said experiences at a stalemate with one another, having no way to prove to others their experience is the authentic one. Here again I'll draw the line between one being warranted in believing something and one being able to demonstrate that belief as true to others.

and Christians cannot seem to find any cases it is an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

To a Christian their experience just is the case. Unless they have a good reason to doubt such an experience they ought not reject it, similar to how they ought not reject their experience of external world because of pure skeptical objections.

I did not even mention the weak attempts of OoM. Let's ignore him for now.

But they are who I'm talking about.

But at least you can see that a Muslim would need to present evidence,

In the situation I'm describing, no they wouldn't.

No reliable evidence has been presented for the Christian side here, only very weak apologetics and attempts to shift the burden of proof.

I could fire back and say very weak counter-apologetics and fringe theories were presented by the skeptics. None of you have done a particularly good job.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is unlikely that you have access to any records that would establish @ObjectOfMercy as mentally ill so your dismissive attitude is about as unpersuasive to a Christian as is one's religious experience to you.

But he is not the subject here. He simply made a claim that he could not support. In a debate that is worthless. He tried to claim he had evidence for Jesus when it is clear that he does not.

Now why do you think those two are the only explanations for contradictory religious experiences? It's rather amusing how atheists so often tend to see belief in God as one particular set of dogma or nothing at all. While I myself am not a universalist, why think God is not revealing himself in different religious experiences for different purposes or that there is a degree to which subjective human nature tends to cloud the experience?

There could be other explanations. The point is that an actual god speaking to people has never been shown to be the case and has been shown to be wrong countless times.

Be that as it may, that would at best leave the people having said experiences at a stalemate with one another, having no way to prove to others their experience is the authentic one. Here again I'll draw the line between one being warranted in believing something and one being able to demonstrate that belief as true to others.

But that is the problem. No one can demonstrate that they are "warranted in believing".

To a Christian their experience just is the case. Unless they have a good reason to doubt such an experience they ought not reject it, similar to how they ought not reject their experience of external world because of pure skeptical objections.

If one is interested in a factual understanding of the world then one should doubt. "Faith" is not a pathway to the truth since anything can be taken on "faith". Skepticism is a pathway to a the truth much more than faith can ever be.

But they are who I'm talking about.



In the situation I'm describing, no they wouldn't.



I could fire back and say very weak counter-apologetics and fringe theories were presented by the skeptics. None of you have done a particularly good job.

Sorry, not gonna break this down too much. All that is needed to refute most apologetics is to point out how poor their arguments are. If one puts the same burden of proof upon their beliefs as they put on others then by their own standards their beliefs are wrong. One does not get to make weak excuses for one's beliefs and then claim to have refuted arguments against it.