The Resurrection is it provable?

[lewisnotmiller]

Well then the case is closed,

1 Paul had experiences of visions of Jesus

2 atleast some of the information that he received from the visions is true

3 therefore the experience was reall, Paul really and trully saw Jesus


I wasn't expecting you to concid point 1 , but given point 1 the case for the resurrection is easy to build.

That's not how logic works.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Is there any scientific proof or historic proof that Jesus was resurrected and crucified?

Absolutely none. It is just another variation on the dying/rising god mythology present in so many pagan religions before it. Historians cannot even prove Jesus was real though they generally assume he was probably a zealot who was crucified for sedition against Rome. Over the decades stories about this jewish patriot started getting built up and he underwent many metamorphoses from prophet to son of god to god himself. And voila, Christianity appears.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Are you of the opinion that the influence of Christianity around the globe has been predominately negative?

Nope. I think the influence has been enormous, and whether it's positive or negative an any overarching sense is contextual, depending both on circumstance and what's being measured.

It's the size of the influence I was somewhat obliquely referring to, not whether it's 'good' or 'bad'.

I concede that for some populations - like native Australians, and Americans - it would be hard to argue the opposite.

However, while Christianity was undoubtedly tainted by European imperialism, I'd argue that the true source of that problem was imperialism rather than Christianity.

Concepts like Manifest Destiny may be rooted in Imperialism, or driven by a binary world view separating believers from non- in terms of value.

But I tend to think both were interwoven. Much like looking at the norms and laws of earlier societies is often impossible without understanding religious context.

I'm a student of history. Therefore I am a student of religion. That was basically what I meant, without delving into things too much.

 

[danieldemol]

What i think is often overlooked in these discussions is that even if we had signed and thumb printed testimonies of those who knew Jesus that he rose from the dead all that would evidence is that they were most probably liars owing to the non-repeatable nature of the resurrection experiment.

For Jesus to prove that He could resurrect people He would have to prove it to each generation by actually doing it for each generation and allowing us all to personally be witnesses.

In my opinion.

 

[leroy]

I see, so anyone who has a vision of some supernatural being that contains some correct information means they really and truly interacted with said being, and it wasn't just in their head?

You understand that does not follow, yes?

On point two, I'm curious to know which information you think was correct and how you arrived at that conclusion?

I was being sarcastic// if you think that everything from Paul comes from hallucinations then it becomes inexplicable why he reported the same event's that other authors reported.

For example if you raeally believe that Paul knew about the crusifixtion due to a hallucination/// then it must have been a miraculous hallucination

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was being sarcastic// if you think that everything from Paul comes from hallucinations then it becomes inexplicable why he reported the same event's that other authors reported.

For example if you raeally believe that Paul knew about the crusifixtion due to a hallucination/// then it must have been a miraculous hallucination

Can you be specific. I do not know of any such cases myself.

 

[leroy]

Straw man fallacy, and I am being polite because the forum rules forbid a candid appraisal of that claim. There is a scholarly consensus that the gospels are anonymous, and no credible scholar can offer any independent validation for any of it, beyond the crucifixion. Your list offered people's subjective beliefs. just because someone is an historical biblical scholar, does not mean their subjective beliefs are historically valid. This is the very definition of an appeal to authority fallacy.

Most scholars accept that

1 Paul Jonh and the Mark , are independent sources

2 the gospels and Paul where written by "fist generation " Christians

3 Paul and the Authors of the gospels honestly reported what they thoureaññy happened


Claiming that the authors of the gospels where anonymous is just a dishonest red haring .

This is the very definition of an appeal to authority

Well my options are

1 trusting scholars

2 trusting a random and anonymous guy from a forum


You cant blame me for taking option 1

 

[leroy]

Irony overload, lost on you I'm guessing?



And I pointed out that nobody knows who wrote the gospels, and Paul never met nor did he know Jesus. So you're just making up wild assumptions. Do you really not understand the significance?



I just pointed out twice, that your claim was nothing but pure assumption, do you not understand how this undermines yours assumption?



It's Herrings, and no they're not, the fact the gospels are pure unevidenced hearsay, yet you try to pretend they are evidence, is a refutation of your unevidenced claim they are evidence. How can you not see this simple point?

Again

The point the point that I made is :

The fact that the authors of the gospels didn't mention the 500 strongly suggest that these authors didn't copied from Paul nor had Paul as a source.


Will you ever address this point ? Or are you going to continue with your random and unrelated comments?

 

[leroy]

Can you be specific. I do not know of any such cases myself.

No no no

First you have to prove to me that you understand the context of this conversation.... so please explain the context with your own words.

Then I can answer to any questions or requests from you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Most scholars accept that

1 Paul Jonh and the Mark , are independent sources

Citation needed, and remember apologeticists are not scholars.

2 the gospels and Paul where written by "fist generation " Christians

Paul, yes. Mark, maybe. Matt and Luke are looking rather doubtful and definitely not John.

3 Paul and the Authors of the gospels honestly reported what they thoureaññy happened

So what? Paul only had hallucinations. The rest relied on oral tradition. Look how fast Elvis myths appeared when we had news that refuted them.

Claiming that the authors of the gospels where anonymous is just a dishonest red haring .

How so? What does it have to due with hunting dyed bunny rabbits?

Well my options are

1 trusting scholars

No, the trusted scholars disagree with you. You are conflating liars for Jesus, also known as apologists with "scholars"

2 trusting a random and anonymous guy from a forum


You cant blame me for taking option 1

Oh my, no again. You are not trusting people that can refer to trusted scholars. As usual the evidence is not on your side..

 

[Subduction Zone]

No no no

First you have to prove to me that you understand the context of this conversation.... so please explain the context with your own words.

Then I can answer to any questions or requests from you.

I am not you. Why would you make such an assumption about me? And you keep forgetting. You are not able to demand anything yet.

 

[Left Coast]

I was being sarcastic// if you think that everything from Paul comes from hallucinations then it becomes inexplicable why he reported the same event's that other authors reported.

For example if you raeally believe that Paul knew about the crusifixtion due to a hallucination/// then it must have been a miraculous hallucination

Firstly, I was quoting Paul. Do you believe Paul when he said that his information about Jesus came from visions of Jesus rather than other humans? If you believe Paul was mistaken, that's quite an admission.

Secondly, Paul says very little about the crucifixion.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Maybe Imperialism was furthered or tainted by aspect of that religion's doctrinal teachings? The Catholic church signed a concordat with Nazism, that's a lot of Christians. Then there is the crusades, and the Inquisition, the thirty years war, etc etc etc...maybe the message of the doctrine is inherently pernicious, and open to subjective interpretation?

Probably not though, eh? Or else how do you account for all the Empires that preceded Christianity? You do talk an awful lot of drivel sometimes Sheldon.

 

[Sheldon]

You imagine that it has no value, and therefor it has no value to you. And that's just sad. All you did was trap yourself in your own bias.

If you can entirely reverse an argument and it loses or gains nothing, that suggests the argument is meaningless, lets try it:

"You imagine it has some value, and therefore it has value to you, And that's just sad. All you did was trap yourself in your own bias."

Hmm.

 

[Sheldon]

Probably not though, eh? Or else how do you account for all the Empires that preceded Christianity? You do talk an awful lot of drivel sometimes Sheldon.

Or if you try thinking, maybe Christianity was not the first superstition people imagined? Why do you relentlessly feel the urge to resort to churlish ad hominem? If your superstitious beliefs are that fragile, then maybe don't submit them to critical scrutiny?

 

[Sheldon]

Well then the case is closed,

1 Paul had experiences of visions of Jesus

2 atleast some of the information that he received from the visions is true

3 therefore the experience was reall, Paul really and trully saw Jesus


I wasn't expecting you to concid point 1 , but given point 1 the case for the resurrection is easy to build.

1 Paul claimed to have experiences of visions of Jesus

2 atleast some of the information that he received from the visions is true - pure unevidenced assumption.

3 therefore the experience was reall, Paul really and trully saw Jesus -pure unevidenced assumption.

There is no evidence Paul knew or even met Jesus, believing claims for magic won't change this fact. If you make unevidenced assumptions about the things your arguing for, this is called a begging the question fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

It's the reason I find materialism such a shallow and pathetic philosophy. To the materialist, a man is just a biologically programmed body, gone when the body dies and the program stops running. His identity that exists within the rest of us, of him, is just silly "make-believe" to the materialist. What an artless, heartless, way to look at human existence.

That's something of a straw man, but the fact you find the reality of material existence disheartening, is not evidence for a magic realm you want to imagine is real, just to make you feel better about it.

I don't accept claims based on how they make me feel, and especially because they might make me feel better, of course the real irony is how obviously biased such thinking is, given how often you hurl accusations of bias at anyone who dares to assert they don't share your belief.

 

[Sheldon]

I find it humorous that you are annoyed by the fact we humans get to conceptualize God however it makes sense for us to do it. Just because you can't negate a God that morphs to fit every personality.

Nothing in @It Aint Necessarily So's suggested he was annoyed, you may be projecting again. Not being able to "negate" an unfalsifiable claim doesn't make it valid, this is the very definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

I don't agree... it is today's "scholars" who say they are anonymous.

The fact isn't new, if that's what you're claiming. The first council of Nicaea knew they were anonymous when they assigned the names in 325 AD. Who asserts this fact, is less relevant than it being an objective historical fact that the original gospels were anonymous.

 

[Sheldon]

He is not a biblical scholar. Why is his interpretation any better than anyone else's?

Oh oh oh oh, me me me, I know this one....it's that selection thingy, selection.....bias, yes that's it.

On a serious note, I can't be alone in noticing that scholars are being cited here, not for the scholarly peer reviewed historicity of their work, but for the subjective religious beliefs they hold. A bit like creationists claiming "scientists have evidence to dispute evolution" then when pressed for a citation, they turn out to be an engineer, or an infant school humanities teacher, who happen to hold subjective superstitious beliefs.