• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Resurrection is it provable?

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Proof of an ancient event, like resurrection, may be hard to do in a scientific way. Even DNA evidence would not tell us anything. We need to depend on the testimony of others from that time.

However, another way to approach this is to see if any human on record has even died and came back to life. This does happen, such as with people who drown and are resuscitated. It also happens when the heart stops and people are jump started. This is a type of resurrection from the dead, since they were technically dead and then become alive. These examples, require external help. Mother Mary and Mary Madeline tended to his body after he was cut down from the cross.

There are also some rare cases, where people were buried alive, because they were assumed to be dead before the age of modern medicine. They may have been in a coma. A few examples have been discovered where there were fingernail scratches inside a casket, assumed to be from a last ditch effort to escape. We can say resurrection is possible under the right conditions. Think science and not Hollywood,

In the case of Jesus, he was a carpenter by trade and was not married. He had a good paying job, with no dependents. This is why he may have frequented the taverns; single man with money. He was called a drunkard and glutton, by the Pharisees, since he was hard working, with cash to spend and he liked to eat and drink, well.

I would infer he was in excellent physical shape, due to his physical job, without much in the way of nutritional health problems. Many were jealous he could eat so well for his time. But this was his pay check and he enjoyed sharing with it with his buddies, buying rounds.

A young man in his prime, at about 30 years old, with good access to food and beverage, and a physical type job, would be a good physical specimen in his day. He had a foundation for the endurance, needed to survive the torture. It may have ended in a coma, but it is not impossible, he made a come back.

Jesus even said; to paraphrase, he ate and drink like at a wedding feast, but soon this would change into hardship. This sounds like an athlete training for a big prize fight, that would test his endurance to the limits. He does get knocked out in the last round, but he gets back up. After the resurrection, Jesus only remains for a short time, and is gone for good. He may have died the second time from complications or infections, from his wounds which he showed others.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
If a testimony makes 20 claims and 10 of them are known to be true // why not assuming that the other 10 are also true, at least until someone proves the opposite?

Belief is not all or none. It comes in degrees. A proposition may seem extremely unlikely, very unlikely, less than 50-50, etc.. according to the type of claim and the evidence for it. In some cases, a source is trusted enough that anything coming from that source is considered likely to be correct. I'm not sure why you want to discuss this matter. I think you're just trying to get others to agree with you that the people who wrote about the miracles believed they happened rather than knowingly invented embellishing stories. If so, it's a moot point with me. I'll happily stipulate to the possibility that every word written was believed.

But that doesn't matter to me, because I'm only interested in whether a demigod came to earth and performed miracles including rising from the grave and ascending to heaven. No other issues matter. If those things happened, it would be important to know that they did and to study every word the demigod spoke. If not, the Bible is just another book, and one of little value to an unbeliever, just as I suspect you seldom go to the Qur'an for anything because you probably believe that it is not divinely inspired.

So, your line of questioning is puzzling. Yes to anything mundane likely occurring such as a last supper, less than 50-50 to things like Peter and the cock crowing thrice, very possible to Judas selling out Jesus if there was such a supper but who knows to thirty pieces of silver, very possibly to crucifixion, unlikely to being put in a private grave the same day, and virtually zero chance of resurrection. The source, the Bible, is rated intermediate in reliability once one gets past Genesis and Exodus, so each claim is evaluated independently. The idea of finding some of it credible therefore assuming that the rest is credible is reserved only for trusted sources.

I've had expert contract bridge mentors. When they spoke, I listened. My level of skepticism with them dropped as they continued to demonstrate that what they taught was correct, and continued to demonstrate that they understood the game very well and much better than I. I've also had bridge partners that assumed the same authority for themselves, but as soon as I saw that they were blowhards, their advice had to be dealt with more skeptically. This is what I mean by coming from a trusted source increasing the likelihood that the claim is correct. The opposite is the case with sources known to be untrustworthy. Their claims are considered much more likely to be lies than had they come from an unknown source.

Notice that I don't actually believe have 100% belief or disbelief in any aspect of the biblical story, just opinions on what is more or less likely to have actually occurred and to what degree based on the available evidence (no documented cases of the dead revivifying after three days of clinical death, Roman records about crucifixion) and my life experience - people gather for meals, people betray one another, people often add embellishments to stories.

You accept stuff in your daily life without empirical evidence, for example If I tell you that I am male, you will probably trust me and assume that I am a man, you wouldn’t say something like “no no no until you provide empirical evidence (say a DNA test) I will disbelieve the claim that you are male.

Yes. I consider it extremely likely that I am interacting with an actual human being who is an adult male. I wouldn't need a DNA test unless the accuracy of that claim was critical to some matter. Notice that this doesn't make any other claim you make more or less likely to be true. Suppose you also claimed to have a PhD from an ivy league university and are working in the Pentagon. I don't know you well enough to say what the chances of you embellishing your resume would be. I just know that it's possible, but unusual. But if you claimed that you were the manager at a big box store, I would accept that as very likely. Why? People commonly inflate their biographies, as on dating sites, but they don't generally lie about having a common job that many people would qualify to hold.

I'm sure that you think that way as well in secular matters. You try to make accurate assessments of situations and sizing up people based on experience, present evidence, and the relative importance of being correct. You treat a request for a loan from a trusted friend differently than from a coworker you hardly know. But when it comes to the Bible, many believers become motivated reasoners. Their thinking becomes tendentious. They're looking for ways to read scripture to confirm it rather than evaluate it disinterestedly as an unbeliever would do, and as you would likely do with Quranic scripture.

The claim is that events that where interpreted as miracles by some people occurred ..... which is a "low level claim " ..... so by your rules all I need is ordinary evidence ,

Yes. It is possibly the case. And it is also very possibly not the case. Both things happen.

But evidence for what? Low level claims? Let's just stipulate to them. OK. There might have been events misunderstood as miracles. That doesn't matter to me. Perhaps some miracle stories were based in a hasty conclusion about something witnessed, and some were not. Nothing changes either way.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I don't think there is any good reason to claim that the earth is flat. But, I don't believe Trump lost and it is possible that the moon landing was fake, there are good reasons to think so.

Do you know what your criteria are for belief and rejection? I can't tell. There used to be good reason to believe the earth was flat. I imagine Neanderthals all believed that, since that's what their senses reveal. They probably also believed that the earth was stationary for the same reason. That's how it looks and feels. But you and I live in different times, and we have excellent evidence that the earth is spheroidal. So, in this example, you're going with the evidence. And you are correct.

There is no good reason to believe Trump won, and ample evidence to deem the claimed disproved, but that one you believe. This time, you've ignored the evidence and come to a false conclusion. Hopefully, you haven't acted on that belief. Many others who have are having legal difficulties (false electors, insurrectionists). This is the risk of acting on faith. Mere belief without that belief bleeding into life choices can be harmless, such as believing in angels. It's when those beliefs affect choices that problems can arise, like drunk driving because you consider yourself protected by a guardian angel.

The moon landing is in between. It's an extraordinary claim, so it requires extraordinary evidentiary support. It has that, but the evidence isn't obvious. Did you know that there are reflecting mirrors on the moon aimed to reflect back to earth, whose signals are used to determine the precise distance to the moon? Did you know that footprints leading to and from lunar landing platforms (the part of the lunar lander that doesn't go back up on takeoff), scientific equipment that can be visualized by lunar reconnaissance orbiters? What do you suppose the American response to a faked Soviet lunar landing would have been? Do you think they would be fine with no spacecraft being detected going to the moon?

I hope you got yourself vaccinated.

You can't show that.

Not to someone with a stake in believing the Flood story. The demonstration, like all teaching, is a cooperative effort. The student needs to be willing and able to evaluate evidence and argument dispassionately and be convinced by a compelling argument. The only people unconvinced by the argument against the Flood would be those who just can't understand it, and those who are motivated not to.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Belief is not all or none. It comes in degrees. A proposition may seem extremely unlikely, very unlikely, less than 50-50, etc.. according to the type of claim and the evidence for it. In some cases, a source is trusted enough that anything coming from that source is considered likely to be correct. I'm not sure why you want to discuss this matter. I think you're just trying to get others to agree with you that the people who wrote about the miracles believed they happened rather than knowingly invented embellishing stories. If so, it's a moot point with me. I'll happily stipulate to the possibility that every word written was believed.

But that doesn't matter to me, because I'm only interested in whether a demigod came to earth and performed miracles including rising from the grave and ascending to heaven. No other issues matter. If those things happened, it would be important to know that they did and to study every word the demigod spoke. If not, the Bible is just another book, and one of little value to an unbeliever, just as I suspect you seldom go to the Qur'an for anything because you probably believe that it is not divinely inspired.

So, your line of questioning is puzzling. Yes to anything mundane likely occurring such as a last supper, less than 50-50 to things like Peter and the cock crowing thrice, very possible to Judas selling out Jesus if there was such a supper but who knows to thirty pieces of silver, very possibly to crucifixion, unlikely to being put in a private grave the same day, and virtually zero chance of resurrection. The source, the Bible, is rated intermediate in reliability once one gets past Genesis and Exodus, so each claim is evaluated independently. The idea of finding some of it credible therefore assuming that the rest is credible is reserved only for trusted sources.

I've had expert contract bridge mentors. When they spoke, I listened. My level of skepticism with them dropped as they continued to demonstrate that what they taught was correct, and continued to demonstrate that they understood the game very well and much better than I. I've also had bridge partners that assumed the same authority for themselves, but as soon as I saw that they were blowhards, their advice had to be dealt with more skeptically. This is what I mean by coming from a trusted source increasing the likelihood that the claim is correct. The opposite is the case with sources known to be untrustworthy. Their claims are considered much more likely to be lies than had they come from an unknown source.

Notice that I don't actually believe have 100% belief or disbelief in any aspect of the biblical story, just opinions on what is more or less likely to have actually occurred and to what degree based on the available evidence (no documented cases of the dead revivifying after three days of clinical death, Roman records about crucifixion) and my life experience - people gather for meals, people betray one another, people often add embellishments to stories.



Yes. I consider it extremely likely that I am interacting with an actual human being who is an adult male. I wouldn't need a DNA test unless the accuracy of that claim was critical to some matter. Notice that this doesn't make any other claim you make more or less likely to be true. Suppose you also claimed to have a PhD from an ivy league university and are working in the Pentagon. I don't know you well enough to say what the chances of you embellishing your resume would be. I just know that it's possible, but unusual. But if you claimed that you were the manager at a big box store, I would accept that as very likely. Why? People commonly inflate their biographies, as on dating sites, but they don't generally lie about having a common job that many people would qualify to hold.

I'm sure that you think that way as well in secular matters. You try to make accurate assessments of situations and sizing up people based on experience, present evidence, and the relative importance of being correct. You treat a request for a loan from a trusted friend differently than from a coworker you hardly know. But when it comes to the Bible, many believers become motivated reasoners. Their thinking becomes tendentious. They're looking for ways to read scripture to confirm it rather than evaluate it disinterestedly as an unbeliever would do, and as you would likely do with Quranic scripture.



Yes. It is possibly the case. And it is also very possibly not the case. Both things happen.

But evidence for what? Low level claims? Let's just stipulate to them. OK. There might have been events misunderstood as miracles. That doesn't matter to me. Perhaps some miracle stories were based in a hasty conclusion about something witnessed, and some were not. Nothing changes either way.
I didn’t find any relevant point of disagreement,

So based on all your comments I think it´s safe to say that you accept that probably something that was interpreted as a resurrection by some people happened.

Perhaps it was a misunderstand, an illusion, a fraud, or a real miracle, the fact is that some early Christians “saw something” that they interpreted as a resurrection. Do we agree on this point (at least for the sake of this discussion)?
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Proof of an ancient event, like resurrection, may be hard to do in a scientific way. Even DNA evidence would not tell us anything. We need to depend on the testimony of others from that time.

We don't need to depend on testimony. We shouldn't. We should be skeptical of all testimony not supported by physical evidence, especially when the stakes for being wrong are high, such as a courtroom trial. You're probably aware of Project Innocence, a effort to use what was then new forensic techniques to determine the accuracy of trials that resulted in a death sentence based mostly or entirely on testimony, and how often, the facts later showed how unreliable it is, and that's eyewitness testimony. So, if all one has is testimony, and the stakes are high enough, one should not rely on it. If no other evidence is available, we should not convict, nor believe extraordinary claims.

However, another way to approach this is to see if any human on record has even died and came back to life.

If they came back to life, they weren't dead. Biologically, death involves a loss of structural integrity at an intracellular level, which is irreversible. It can be difficult to determine when this point of no return has been crossed, or even if it has before rigor mortis and dependent lividity appear, sure signs of irreversibility (like decapitation or decomposition).

Even if metabolism comes to a halt or near halt, as long as structural integrity is maintained in the cells, resuscitation is possible. But once the cell membranes begin leaking and the mitochondria breaking apart and electron transport is disrupted, it's over.

Clinical medicine uses the word death metaphorically as well. Sudden death, which is the cessation of breathing and or a heartbeat, is survivable with cardiopulmonary resuscitation. And brain death isn't even that. The heart and lungs might be serving the organs and tissues adequately. Neither of these is literal death.

Nobody has ever survived three days with no heartbeat except possibly people with very low core body temperatures, who can sometimes be revived with slow warming. But these people were also not biologically dead

It may have ended in a coma, but it is not impossible, he made a come back.

That also is not cellular death. The claim is that Jesus was dead when he arose, not that he was mistaken for dead.

So based on all your comments I think it´s safe to say that you accept that probably something that was interpreted as a resurrection by some people happened. Perhaps it was a misunderstand, an illusion, a fraud, or a real miracle, the fact is that some early Christians “saw something” that they interpreted as a resurrection. Do we agree on this point (at least for the sake of this discussion)?

I can't say probably, because I don't believed they witnessed anything that could be mistaken for resurrection, but I'll stipulate to that, because nothing changes even that is correct. As I said earlier, none of these other issues is relevant. All that matters is whether supernatural events were part of Jesus' life or not, not whether people believed that they were, including those that died for that belief then or now.
 
Last edited:

leroy

Well-Known Member
We don't need to depend on testimony. We shouldn't. We should be skeptical of all testimony not supported by physical evidence, especially when the stakes for being wrong are high, such as a courtroom trial.

I think this is part of the issue, court rooms require proof beyond reasonable doubt , where obviously we don’t have that for the resurrection nor nearly any other event from ancient history

History is not as strict as court rooms // anything that is more likely to have occurred than its alternatives should be taken as “historical fact”

For example that Jesus had 3 brothers and some sisters should be taken as a historical fact because the claim that “some man had brothers and sisters” is more likely than the alternative (say that the authors of the gospels lied about that point)

Are we in agreement?


I can't say probably, because I don't believed they witnessed anything that could be mistaken for resurrection, but I'll stipulate to that, because nothing changes even that is correct. As I said earlier, none of these other issues is relevant. All that matters is whether supernatural events were part of Jesus' life or not, not whether people believed that, including those that died for that belief then or now.

Well if you grant that people “saw something” that they interpreted as a miracle, the next step would be to determine all the possible explanations and determine the one that is more likely to be true

1 They hallucinated

2 it was a fraud (jesus never died)

3 it was a mistake (people saw a guy who looks like Jesus)

4 it was a real miracle

5 some other option (please explain)

So which alternative do you think is more likely to be true?

And just for my IFO are you an atheist, agnostic or how do you define yourself?


Thanks for this polite conversation BTW
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Don't need to address positions that have no substance. :) (unless I find one that does). Might be different if I felt compelled to convince you.

If you have no interest in actually addressing the points I make, just say that.

No... there is a fallacy here. That's like saying "Since there are $100 counterfeits, all $100 bill are counterfeit. You will have to give better support than "some scholars believe".

I didn't say they all were. I literally told you I didn't think all were.

No, I don't think so. This isn't even applicable. I you say "there are no eye-witnesses", it would be your obligation to prove there weren't any.

Very well, what we can at best say is we have no good evidence of eyewitnesses. If you have some, show it. Again, your initial claim was that there were witnesses. So who?

Yes, he doesn't specify... but I can pretty much figure it out.

Weird that you haven't named them or given any evidence of that, then.

Nice side-step. :) My point was simply the book of Luke

This is an incomplete sentence, I think.

Yes... but your statement is that because there are some it should be translated as all. A fallacy.

Not what I said, though.

How do you know? History doesn't say that.

When did Papias live? When did he write? Which apostles did he ever say he knew?

Too many errors here.

1) Peter was a "believer" to the point that he now fellowshipped with Gentiles -- ceased being an "Torah-observant Jew".

That Peter was part of the group that wanted Gentiles to follow the Torah is said explicitly by Paul. Galatians 2. You're a pastor Ken, you should know these things.

2) "Available evidence" after 2000 years doesn't mean "no evidence". Papias statement is evidence that there was a Greek version.

You mean a Hebrew version? Matthew was written in Greek. It literally quotes Mark's Greek verbatim. Where is this original Hebrew version?

3) If Mark was an "eye-witness" - why wouldn't I copy what he said? And if Matthew wanted to at 50% more information to someone else's eye-witness report agreeing that what Mark said was 100% correct... why couldn't he?

This is silly special pleading. Independent eyewitnesses don't copy each other verbatim. They write their own version of events.

Have you ever talked to a teacher before? Do you know how they detect plagiarism?

You are quoting from the Epistle of Barnabas? You are getting me confused. First you say you can't quote from a pseudepigrapha epistle and then you want to quote this Epistle?

It's not the Epistle of Barnabus. It's a quote of Papias from Apollinarius. Jesus man, read more than the title.

You understand we don't have any of the original writing of Papias, yes? We have quotes of him from other authors.

And that is your defense that it wasn't written by Matthew? You need to give me something more substantive.

Ken it's on you to present evidence that Matthew was written by Matthew. The Gospel is anonymous. You need to provide more substantive evidence. Quit trying to pass the buck.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
No, once again this is an observation. This was your chance to ask for evidence. Instead you repeated a false claim about others.
Of course when you know that someone will support their claims with evidence you never seem to ask for evidence. Not asking for evidence in a debate is essentially acceptance.
Again... lotsa opinions but no real substance. Let me know when you have a real question.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Again... lotsa opinions but no real substance. Let me know when you have a real question.
No "substance" ws needed. You need to learn when to ask for evidence if someone makes a claim that you do not understand or disagree with. When it comes to the burden of proof we all have it. Also you do not seem to understand that the strength of evidence needed depends upon the strength of a claim and how it applies to the argument. If I tell everyone "I just bought a puppy!" that claim has no real effect on the argument. It is not a very strong claim. So it does not need strong evidence. Do you undersand this? If I say "I just bought a blue dragon and am keeping it in my garagae" that claim is very extraordinary and is going to need some evidence.

If I make a claim that you disagree with and needs evidence then say so. If you say nothing it is the same as if you were a moping child that got caught and corrected. You are blaming others because you have debated poorly. Worse yet you have ignored the times that I have supplied sources, and not dishonest ones, that showed how you were wrong. Once again, scholarly debates need scholarly sources.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think this is part of the issue, court rooms require proof beyond reasonable doubt , where obviously we don’t have that for the resurrection nor nearly any other event from ancient history

Then I'd say doubting that such events occurred is reasonable. Remember, in critical analysis, no idea should be believed more than the quality and quantity of the available evidence supports, and always tentatively, that is, we should always maintain some level of doubt however certain we feel (philosophical doubt, the kind understood by not experienced as doubt), and we should always be prepared to revise our estimate of the likelihood of a claim if new evidence makes it seem more or less secure. So, if we don't have sufficient evidence to believe in a resurrection beyond a reasonable doubt, we shouldn't believe that it occurred to that degree, either.

History is not as strict as court rooms // anything that is more likely to have occurred than its alternatives should be taken as “historical fact” For example that Jesus had 3 brothers and some sisters should be taken as a historical fact because the claim that “some man had brothers and sisters” is more likely than the alternative (say that the authors of the gospels lied about that point) Are we in agreement?

Unfortunately, no. I do not have enough evidence to consider that a fact. It may well be the case, but belief beyond saying that that very well may be correct isn't justified with just that.

Well if you grant that people “saw something” that they interpreted as a miracle, the next step would be to determine all the possible explanations and determine the one that is more likely to be true

1 They hallucinated
2 it was a fraud (Jesus never died)
3 it was a mistake (people saw a guy who looks like Jesus)
4 it was a real miracle
5 some other option (please explain)

So which alternative do you think is more likely to be true?

What I said is that I could stipulate to somebody or several somebodies saw something that led to the crucifixion claim, and it wouldn't matter. But if you want to know what I believe happened, it's none of those. I don't believe that a mistake was made based in visual evidence. The story is a part of a motif of gods or demigods born of a virgin who died and rose again in three days that crosses multiple cultures before it arrived in Christianity. Both the virgin birth and the resurrection originate in these, not something witnessed.

And just for my IFO are you an atheist, agnostic or how do you define yourself?

Agnostic atheist. Your question suggests that you see them as mutually exclusive categories, but if we define an atheist as one who has no god belief, and an agnostic as one who neither claims that gods exist nor that they don't, then one can be both. This is a consequence of the kind of thinking I've been describing. I don't have enough evidence to believe in gods, nor to rule their possibility out, so I do neither.

Thanks for this polite conversation BTW

Likewise. Thanks.

Maybe you can explain why you're pursuing this line of questioning. I've expressed that it doesn't matter to me either way what the claims of miracles are based in or when they were added to the story of Jesus - at the time they allegedly occurred or later - but it seems you do consider it relevant. Why?

What else in this matter is relevant apart from whether Jesus is who he and others claimed he was? As I've said, if he was representing and speaking for a deity, that makes his words important whatever they are. If not, then it doesn't matter who wrote them, and if they don't resonate as more than opinions of ancient people who lived in a very different world from mine and are therefore of limited relevance today, and with whom I don't agree on moral advice or life advice, then why read them twice or take their advice?
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I think this is part of the issue, court rooms require proof beyond reasonable doubt , where obviously we don’t have that for the resurrection nor nearly any other event from ancient history

History is not as strict as court rooms // anything that is more likely to have occurred than its alternatives should be taken as “historical fact”

For example that Jesus had 3 brothers and some sisters should be taken as a historical fact because the claim that “some man had brothers and sisters” is more likely than the alternative (say that the authors of the gospels lied about that point)

Are we in agreement?

In a court of law eyewitness testimony is the weakest form of evidence allowed. But you don't even have that. You only have hearsay. For example the claim that Jesus had four brothers is hearsay. There is no evidence that the gospels were eyewitness testimony and rather strong evidence against it. And when it comes to brothers of Jesus that is debated about in Christianity. The Catholics will claim that they were his older brothers, which seems a bit odd to me. Where were they during the nativity.? Or cousins if one is Greek Orthodox:

Brothers of Jesus - Wikipedia

Even that mundane claim is heavily debated among Christians.

But the point is in a court of law the Bible would fail as being evidence.

Well if you grant that people “saw something” that they interpreted as a miracle, the next step would be to determine all the possible explanations and determine the one that is more likely to be true

1 They hallucinated

2 it was a fraud (jesus never died)

3 it was a mistake (people saw a guy who looks like Jesus)

4 it was a real miracle

5 some other option (please explain)

So which alternative do you think is more likely to be true?

And just for my IFO are you an atheist, agnostic or how do you define yourself?


Thanks for this polite conversation BTW

The hallucinated argument is not that unreasonable. As far as the Bible goes you only need two or three people. Paul as much as admitted that he had hallucinations and then it would take only one or two others that pushed the story. Just look at our recent election. When people have a strong emotional attachment to something they see things that did not happen. Do you remember the "broken water main story"? That never happened. If you listen to the people that were there, especially to the Republican official that was in charge what happened was that they thought that they were done and were going home. They were packing up to go when the call came in that they could not leave yet and had to keep counting. There was no funny business, People that understand how votes were counted looked over the video of it and confirmed this multiple times. The story of "suitcases of ballots" was just a made up one based on a lack of understanding of seeing only a small portion of the tape. This is the sort of "hallucination" that can rise spontaneously and immediately. We do have evidence of this sort of event happening. We do not have evidence of a resurrection.

Of all of the options it is the most likely and it is the one that we can show happening time and time again in history.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Maybe you can explain why you're pursuing this line of questioning. I've expressed that it doesn't matter to me either way what the claims of miracles are based in or when they were added to the story of Jesus - at the time they allegedly occurred or later - but it seems you do consider it relevant. Why?


Sure, what I am trying to push is that one can conclude that the resurrection occurred without making any “extraordinary claims”

1 The existence of God is “realistically “possible (which means that miracles are possible) unless you are a strong atheist who affirms beyond reasonable doubt that God doesn’t exist you should accept this point.

2 Jesus Died

3 Jesus was buried

4 the tomb was found empty

5 People “saw something” that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus

6 Christians where willing to fight and die for the truth of their believe in the resurrection (this suggests that they where not lying, they honestly believed in Jesus and the resurrection)


None of this are “extraordinary claims” and I think we do have “ordinary evidence” to support these claims,

If you accept all 6 points, the resurrection because the best explanation (better than any other alternative)

Just what to know where do you think we have our main point of disagreement.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Sure, what I am trying to push is that one can conclude that the resurrection occurred without making any “extraordinary claims”

1 The existence of God is “realistically “possible (which means that miracles are possible) unless you are a strong atheist who affirms beyond reasonable doubt that God doesn’t exist you should accept this point.

No, You already jumped the shark. A God may be possible. A God may not be possible. We simply do not know that. To claim that "a God may be possible" puts as huge of a burden of proof upon you as a statement by a hard atheist that "a God is not possible" puts on him.

At this point your argument is already refuted. You are trying to sneak in an extraordinary claim that you cannot justify.

2 Jesus Died

If he ever existed, yes. And I will agree that there is evidence for the existence of Jesus. Not the strongest of evidence, but enough to satisfy me. But one needs to keep an open mind on this claim.

3 Jesus was buried

Almost certainly not. at least not as the Bible says. This was a Roman crucifixion. Even the biblical myth states that. What they do not explain is how they got the guards to allow the body to come down. Let me save you some time, that it was the Sabbath would not make a whit of difference to the Romans. Part of the punishment of crucifixion was leaving the body up for a long time.. It was not meant to be a pretty sight.


4 the tomb was found empty

5 People “saw something” that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus

6 Christians where willing to fight and die for the truth of their believe in the resurrection (this suggests that they where not lying, they honestly believed in Jesus and the resurrection)


None of this are “extraordinary claims” and I think we do have “ordinary evidence” to support these claims,

If you accept all 6 points, the resurrection because the best explanation (better than any other alternative)

Just what to know where do you think we have our main point of disagreement.

Ignoring the rest. You jumped off the rails right away and then the train careened wildly through town. You might want to read this:

Why Did Mark Invent an Empty Tomb? • Richard Carrier
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
what I am trying to push is that one can conclude that the resurrection occurred without making any “extraordinary claims”

Resurrection IS an extraordinary claim. To my knowledge, it has never occurred and is impossible. If it happened once, that would be an extraordinary event.

The existence of God is “realistically “possible (which means that miracles are possible) unless you are a strong atheist who affirms beyond reasonable doubt that God doesn’t exist you should accept this point.

I'm not a strong atheist. I mentioned that I am an agnostic atheist because there is no way to rule out the existence of noninterventionalist deities. But I do consider the Christian deity ruled out for two reasons, one empirical and one purely logical. Even so, let stipulate to resurrection being possible.

Jesus was buried

Probably. It might have been a mass grave with many others crucified that day. Doesn't seem to be evidence for resurrection either way.

the tomb was found empty

We don't know that there was a tomb. We know that a tomb is included in the biblical account, but not that that account is accurate. Even so, let's stipulate to somebody rolling a rock away where Jesus was said to be buried, and the space was empty. It still doesn't suggest resurrection.

People “saw something” that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus

I don't think so for the reasons already given, but let's say they did. All of these things together still don't add up to sufficient evidence to believe that a man three days dead came alive again.

Incidentally, what did they report seeing that could be misinterpreted as a man rising from the dead? What did they report seeing that could be misinterpreted as Jesus ascending into heaven? Did somebody report seeing his body float upward into the sky overhead? Not to my knowledge.

Christians where willing to fight and die for the truth of their believe in the resurrection (this suggests that they where not lying, they honestly believed in Jesus and the resurrection)

That's evidence that they believed the story, not that it happened. People would fight and die for the same belief today, which also doesn't mean that it happened. The Heavens' Gate people died for a belief. Were they correct? Does that make you think that they were correct and made it to comet Hale-Bopp?

Just what to know where do you think we have our main point of disagreement.

What constitutes an extraordinary claim and what constitutes extraordinary evidence. You seem to think that the evidence you cited is conclusive or close to it. It doesn't persuade me. There are naturalistic explanations for that story, which are always preferred to those requiring the existence of a deity according to Occam. MUCH MUCH MUCH more likely is that an itinerant fundamentalist preacher with a following got into trouble with the law, was convicted of a capital crime, executed, his body disposed of, and legends grew up around this person which including a virgin birth and a resurrection - a trope familiar to the ancient world. This accounts for the facts without invoking the supernatural, something not know to exist. I believe that you would agree if we were discussing a similar account about another man.

But faith modifies judgment, so called motivated reasoning: "the phenomenon in cognitive science and social psychology in which emotional biases lead to justifications or decisions based on their desirability rather than an accurate reflection of the evidence." This is also called a faith-based confirmation bias. It's why you and I process the same evidence so differently.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
If you have no interest in actually addressing the points I make, just say that.

To be honest... we have dealt with so many points on pages of different issues... I wouldn't know which one specifically you are talking about.

I didn't say they all were. I literally told you I didn't think all were.

And, thus, what I said stands.

Very well, what we can at best say is we have no good evidence of eyewitnesses. If you have some, show it. Again, your initial claim was that there were witnesses. So who?

I'm not sure why you are rehashing this. If I said, "You are right, Luke did not mention who he spoke to"... why are you asking again?

Weird that you haven't named them or given any evidence of that, then.

I think what is weird that your thought process can't figure it out. Who did he speak about? Is that question that has obvious answers done on purpose?

Not what I said, though.

Maybe you can be more explicit?

When did Papias live? When did he write? Which apostles did he ever say he knew?

When did he live? Are you saying you have no idea?

When did he write? Was it before or after he was born?

Which did he knew? Are you saying you never investigated and yet have a position on it? Weird.

That Peter was part of the group that wanted Gentiles to follow the Torah is said explicitly by Paul. Galatians 2. You're a pastor Ken, you should know these things.

I have read Galatians. I thought you were a little more knowledgeable on the NT--my error in my assumption... Sorry.

Can you enumerate just where he wanted the Gentiles to follow the Torah? Are you eliminating the book of Acts in the process?

You mean a Hebrew version? Matthew was written in Greek. It literally quotes Mark's Greek verbatim. Where is this original Hebrew version?

Relevance? Strawman? Did you misread what I said?

This is silly special pleading. Independent eyewitnesses don't copy each other verbatim. They write their own version of events.

Have you ever talked to a teacher before? Do you know how they detect plagiarism?

Do you think they had a "plagiarism" clause in those days? Do you know how oral tradition was shared?

You understand we don't have any of the original writing of Papias, yes? We have quotes of him from other authors.

You quoted the site. Was that for effect? It seems like you are getting a little irritated. A moment for you to take a time out?
 
Last edited:

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
No "substance" ws needed. You need to learn when to ask for evidence if someone makes a claim that you do not understand or disagree with. When it comes to the burden of proof we all have it. Also you do not seem to understand that the strength of evidence needed depends upon the strength of a claim and how it applies to the argument. If I tell everyone "I just bought a puppy!" that claim has no real effect on the argument. It is not a very strong claim. So it does not need strong evidence. Do you undersand this? If I say "I just bought a blue dragon and am keeping it in my garagae" that claim is very extraordinary and is going to need some evidence.

If I make a claim that you disagree with and needs evidence then say so. If you say nothing it is the same as if you were a moping child that got caught and corrected. You are blaming others because you have debated poorly. Worse yet you have ignored the times that I have supplied sources, and not dishonest ones, that showed how you were wrong. Once again, scholarly debates need scholarly sources.

#411
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
The story is a part of a motif of gods or demigods born of a virgin who died and rose again in three days that crosses multiple cultures before it arrived in Christianity. Both the virgin birth and the resurrection originate in these, not something witnessed.



.
Well I see at least 3 problems

0. Pagan myhts are far from analogous or even similar to what the gospels describe //

1 Christians where already proclaiming the resurrection within a few years (or months) after Jesus died. This makes any “legend that grew over time” unlikely………..

2 First century Jews considered pagan Gods and abomination, it would have been unlikely that that they would have inspired a new religion based on those Gods.

3 early Christians where persecuted and willing to die for their believes, it sounds strange that some people would have invented a religion based on other Gods, and then these same people fought and die in the name of a religion that they themselves invented and knew isn’t real.


The alternative is that early Christians “saw something “ that they interpreted to be a resurrection / therefore they became Christians / they thought that Jesus was God / which is why they changed their religion and where willing to die in his name. (this alternative seems more likely to me)


For example “Mythra was born from a rock” and people say “oh virgin birth just like Jesus”
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Almost certainly not. at least not as the Bible says. This was a Roman crucifixion. Even the biblical myth states that. What they do not explain is how they got the guards to allow the body to come down. Let me save you some time, that it was the Sabbath would not make a whit of difference to the Romans. Part of the punishment of crucifixion was leaving the body up for a long time.. It was not meant to be a pretty sight.

I will play by your rules, can you support that claim with a peer reviewed source? // no atheist blog posts nor YouTube videos are allowed.



Ignoring the rest. You jumped off the rails right away and then the train careened wildly through town. You might want to read this:

Why Did Mark Invent an Empty Tomb? • Richard Carrier
}funny one wonders why is it that I am not allowed to use apologetic sources, but you are allowed to use blog posts from Richard Carrier.

If you demand proper scholarship for my claims, why wouldn’t you provide such scholarship for your claims?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Yes, that was a false claim. @leroy should know better. You should know better. It was also a personal attack. Do you want to continue in this vein?

You could easily have said what claim you want to be supported. You never have. That was your mistake and not mine.

ok this is the cliam that you are suppose to support

Part of the punishment of crucifixion was leaving the body up for a long time
 
Top