Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[Trailblazer]

I grant you your faith, but not the right to call it justified, reasoned, or sufficiently evidenced belief.

@Brian2 does have 'the right' to call it justified, reasoned, or sufficiently evidenced, just as you have 'the right' to say it is not.
What is the point of arguing about it? All he has is a belief and all you have is a personal opinion.
Standard reasoning applied to evidence to decide what is true about the world does not apply to evidence for God since God is not in the world.

 

[Brian2]

Only if you bring your own rules of reason to connect your evidence to the conclusions you say are derived from it. If one uses the rules for interpreting evidence used in law and science, you claim of sufficient support to justify your belief fails.

There is sufficient evidence to justify belief imo.

I grant you your faith, but not the right to call it justified, reasoned, or sufficiently evidenced belief. When you do that, you will be judged by the standards of those who actually do use standard reasoning applied to evidence to decide what is true about the world, and corrected where you violate them. As I've indicated to a few apologists lately, I can't imagine anybody minding you saying that you believe by faith. They might tell you why they don't, but not that you shouldn't. I don't mind that you do, but please stay in your own lane:

As I said, there is sufficient evidence to justify a belief in Jesus.
It is skeptics who want to change the rules of evidence it seems and say that evidence for God and the Bible is not evidence.
That is the rabbit hole you have fallen into and I suppose it justifies your lack of belief to yourself.

 

[Trailblazer]

As I said, there is sufficient evidence to justify a belief in Jesus.

More than sufficient.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is sufficient evidence to justify belief imo.

Yes, I know.

It is skeptics who want to change the rules of evidence it seems and say that evidence for God and the Bible is not evidence.

No, it is critical thinkers who developed those rules and people like you and Trailblazer who disregard them.

@Brian2 does have 'the right' to call it justified, reasoned, or sufficiently evidenced, just as you have 'the right' to say it is not.

OK, but not the right to do so in a mixed discussion forum and go uncorrected.

What is the point of arguing about it?

I already explained - to correct his (and your) logical errors when you claim you use reason and evidence to get to god beliefs.

Standard reasoning applied to evidence to decide what is true about the world does not apply to evidence for God since God is not in the world.

Perhaps not for you. For me, anything that can affect nature is a part of nature, is real, exists, and is detectable by the right sensor in the right time and place where it modifies another aspect of nature, like a wolf does. Nothing is some of those things but not all of them. Remove any of description and you remove all of it, and you are describing the nonexistent, like a werewolf is. Nothing that exists is exempt from critical scrutiny. Nothing causally disconnected from nature can be said to exist. In which category shall we place gods - with wolves or with werewolves? Werewolves aren't in the world, either, so it would have to be that one.

 

[Trailblazer]

I already explained - to correct his (and your) logical errors when you claim you use reason and evidence to get to god beliefs.

Whatever floats your boat. I know I use reason and evidence so I don't care what is in your boat.

Perhaps not for you. For me, anything that can affect nature is a part of nature, is real, exists, and is detectable by the right sensor in the right time and place where it modifies another aspect of nature, like a wolf does. Nothing is some of those things but not all of them. Remove any of description and you remove all of it, and you are describing the nonexistent, like a werewolf is. Nothing that exists is exempt from critical scrutiny. Nothing causally disconnected from nature can be said to exist. In which category shall we place gods - with wolves or with werewolves? Werewolves aren't in the world, either, so it would have to be that one.

God is not part of nature.

The only way that God can ever be detected is via the Manifestations of God who God sends for that purpose.
God was detected in Jesus. Jesus was born and came into the world to bear witness unto the truth about God.

John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

 

[CG Didymus]

No, it is critical thinkers who developed those rules and people like you and Trailblazer who disregard them.

OK, but not the right to do so in a mixed discussion forum and go uncorrected.

Same stuff, different thread. Was there a need to apply the rules of critical thinking to religion? Well, yeah. What's stupid is that Baha'is don't believe the Bible or the NT in the same way most Christians take it. What rules are they applying?

One Baha'i, a couple of years ago, used science to refute the Christian belief in the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. He said that a body that has been dead for three days ain't coming back to life. And a physical is not going to be able to ascend and survive out in space. And I agree with him and the other Baha'is. But where I don't agree with them is when they say that the gospels don't say and teach that Jesus did resurrect and ascend. I think it clearly does, and because of that, I agree with Christians like Brian2. It does say that, but how are Christians going to prove it?

They aren't, and Baha'is aren't going to be able to prove that their God is real, their God is not the same God as most Christians believe in, and they aren't going to be able to prove that their prophet is the return of Christ. Their evidence proves nothing, and Baha'is like TB admit it. So, as she's been shown by several atheists over the years, her evidence is weak and, ultimately, must be taken on faith.

 

[CG Didymus]

Nothing that exists is exempt from critical scrutiny. Nothing causally disconnected from nature can be said to exist. In which category shall we place gods

I wonder if they believe in the Gods of the Greeks, Egyptians, the Aztecs, the Polynesians and even the three-part Gods of some Hindus and Christians? If they reject, and don't believe they are real, what is their reasoning?

The creator of the universe and the giver of life, the sun or Ra represented life, warmth and growth. Since the people regarded Ra as a principal god, creator of the universe and the source of life, he had a strong influence on them, which led to him being one of the most worshipped of all the Egyptian gods and even considered King of the Gods.​

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said:
Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah rising from the physical dead is against Sign of Jonah, I must say, as I understand?
Right?

Jonah did not die in the belly of the fish so Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah could not and did not die on the Cross or in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, please, right?

Regards

Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah pegged the Sign of Jonah to be shown to the Jews and the Jews knew as per Book of Jonah that (1) Jonah entered the belly of fish alive, (2)remained alive in the belly of the fish and (3)came out alive from the belly of the fish, so if the Sign was for the Jews then Yeshua had to remain alive and he did remain alive (1) on the Cross, (2) in the tomb where he was laid and (3) afterwards as he was seen by many, please, right?

Regards

 

[Brian2]

No, it is critical thinkers who developed those rules and people like you and Trailblazer who disregard them.

LOL. I don't know of the rules which you think I should be following. I wouldn't like to be stuck in a set of rules made up by someone and which govern my thinking.

OK, but not the right to do so in a mixed discussion forum and go uncorrected.

You can think the way you want and believe it is best and should govern your life if you want and you can say my thinking and hence beliefs are wrong in your opinion.
But as @Trailblazer said, it is just your opinion.

I already explained - to correct his (and your) logical errors when you claim you use reason and evidence to get to god beliefs.

It is reasonable to step into faith from the limits of what reason and evidence can tell us.
You have decided to step into non belief at those limits and I decided to step the other way.
Both are reasoned choices about our worldviews.

Perhaps not for you. For me, anything that can affect nature is a part of nature, is real, exists, and is detectable by the right sensor in the right time and place where it modifies another aspect of nature, like a wolf does. Nothing is some of those things but not all of them. Remove any of description and you remove all of it, and you are describing the nonexistent, like a werewolf is. Nothing that exists is exempt from critical scrutiny. Nothing causally disconnected from nature can be said to exist. In which category shall we place gods - with wolves or with werewolves? Werewolves aren't in the world, either, so it would have to be that one.

So you just stated your opinion about what you think science should be able to do and what you think God is if science cannot detect God.
Why not just say that God could be real and science just does not know how God works and has not got the right sensors to detect God.
But no, you have decided to say that science is wrong in it's neutrality about God and the supernatural and that your beliefs about God and the supernatural are correct. OK, that's fine, you can believe whatever you want, but don't expect us (@Trailblazer, myself and science) to agree with you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is a straw Mann, i used the term “realistically possible” and I said what I mean with it (not impossible nor very unlikely)

So sure “everything is possible” but not everything is “realistically” possible


I am tired of your semantic games…………….if you don’t affirm directly and unambiguously that the existence of a god is not realistically possible (or very unlikely) I will assume that you agree with my statement.

They appear to be your semantic games. And it's not a straw man. You have asserted that the probability of the existence of the god you believe in is 50% and I'm wondering how you got there. It appears you got there by imagining that it's possible.

You are asserting probabilities without showing your math. I have no idea how likely or probable the existence of the exact god you believe in is, because you haven't actually demonstrated the math to us. You've just asserted a 50% probability without showing it.

Again straw man, you didn’t read the complete sentence.

I said (or implied) that the lack of evidence that the market will go up today, doesn’t imply that the market will go down, nor that down is the most reasonable position nor that down should be the default position.
In other words, the lack of evidence for a god doesn’t imply that “no-god” is the most reasonable nor the default position.

That's right. Notice how nobody here has claimed that lack of evidence for a god means "no god" .... ?? That's just your straw man.

Well you are wrong,

the fact that that there is no evidence that the market will go up, doesn’t justify affit}rming “down”

No, you're wrong. No evidence is required on my part at all, to say to you "I'm not convinced that your claim is true." It's up to you to demonstrate your claim is accurate. Once again, this is another attempt on your part to shift the burden of proof. Which seems to be how most of your arguments around here turn out.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I recently finished Michael Licona's book The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach which argues that there are 3 minimal facts that are accepted by virtually all New Testament scholars which form the so called historical bedrock regarding the fate of Jesus. These are as follows:

1. Jesus was killed by crucifixion under Pilate
2. Very soon after his death, his disciples reported having experiences which they interpreted as the risen Jesus appearing to them, both individually and in groups
3. The early Church persecutor Paul also had an experience which he interpreted as Jesus appearing to him and this experience convinced him to convert to Christianity

Licona argues in detail against the naturalistic hypotheses that attempt to account for the bedrock and concludes that the best explanation is that Jesus actually rose from the dead. He does so by ranking each hypothesis based on how well they satisfy the following criteria:

- Explanatory scope - does the hypothesis account for all the data
- Explanatory power - how well does the hypothesis explain the data
- Plausibility - is the hypothesis compatible with or implied by facts that are generally accepted as known
- Less ad hoc - does the hypothesis go beyond what is known and makes unevidenced assumptions
- Illumination (a bonus criteria) - does the hypothesis shed light on other areas of inquiry

Has anyone interacted with this argument or others similar to it such as those of N.T. Wright, William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas? If so, what are your objections to it?

My objections:

- it attempts to paint the bullseye around the arrow (ie: assumed conclusion)
- it completely ignores the extremely more plausible (by a ridiculous amount) explanations: people lie. people make mistakes. people invent stories. people hallucinate.


All 4 of which are infinitely more likely then "the laws of nature were suspended / violated".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which claim do you think is unverified and which claim are you referring when you ask according to whom?

It's possible the experiences were what you say but then again it's also possible they weren't. What we're looking for is the best explanation, not just a possible one.

The "best explanation" is never going to include something that requires the suspension / violation of natural law.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We know that people don't rise from the dead on their own, true, but here we are talking about God raising someone from the dead.

"We know that rabbits don't just conjure up in a hat on their own, true, but here we are talking about a magician magicking a rabbit into a hat."

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ok, so what is wrong with the arguments provided by Licona in suppor of that point?



Violating the laws of physics would only be a problem if you show that the existence of a god is impossible or very unlikely.




I can do the same with naturalism.

“there is no sufficient evidence for naturalism , therefore naturalism is rejected by default…………..therefore “supernaturalism” wins.

I am using the same type of “logic” than you,

There is no sufficient evidence for a god, therefore no-god is the default possition………..therefore no-god wins.

Honestly don’t you see any flaws with this logic?

Except there is evidence for the natural world. Your logic is flawed.

There is no sufficient evidence for god(s), therefore the default position is to not believe in god(s). That is not the same thing as declaring that "no god exists." Which I just pointed out to you.

You've just accused me of not fully reading your posts, and then I see you make this flawed argument again, where I just pointed out its flaws in my last post to you.

Logic is not your strong suit.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because science, which can study material phenomena, cannot find a spirit God, that does not mean that your Hinduism can stand all scientific scrutiny. Science says "We don't know" and that is what you also should say. If you go beyond that, then you are bringing in belief that has not been scrutinised.

Why does God exist? Hmmm, I don't know but consider it a bonus that God does exist and that He decided to create us and fix the problems that have shown themselves since creation.
Science is still working on how we came to be, without a God doing it.

Sorry, how did the god you believe in "fix" any of our problems?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok, so what is wrong with the arguments provided by Licona in suppor of that point?

About the same as similar arguments provided to support the point of experiences by alien abductees.

Violating the laws of physics would only be a problem if you show that the existence of a god is impossible or very unlikely.

Blatant shift of the burden of proof.

"Violating the laws of physics to conjure a rabbit in a hat would only be a problem if you show that Harry Potter style magic is impossible or very unlikely"

This ties into what I said earlier as an objection: trying to paint the bullseyes around the arrow. ie, the assumed conclusion.

I can do the same with naturalism.

“there is no sufficient evidence for naturalism , therefore naturalism is rejected by default…………..therefore “supernaturalism” wins.

I am using the same type of “logic” than you,

There is no sufficient evidence for a god, therefore no-god is the default possition………..therefore no-god wins.

Honestly don’t you see any flaws with this logic?

The difference is that the natural world demonstrably exist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

50% is the default answer, if you have 2 options and you know nothing about any of these alternatives, then you have no other option than assigning a 50% chance to each.

A 5-year old with a mega simplistic view on reality might agree.
Someone who actually understands a bare minimum of how probabilities work, however, realizes that you can't even begin to assign probabilities if you know nothing about these alternatives.

If nothing about it is known, then the probabilities are unknown.
Not 50/50

We have good reasons to think that you have less than 50% chance of winning the lottery, because usually lotteries have many tickets and few winners.

Good lord.........................................
The fact that your chance of wining is lower then 50% has NOTHING AT ALL to do with how many tickets there are.
It has to do with the total number of possible combinations while only one specific combination gets to win.

Derp.

If you have good reasons to reject the existence of God

There is zero evidence for gods.
That's a very good reason.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't know of the rules which you think I should be following

Yes, I know. But you do better than most by recognizing that. Trailblazer says she follows them. She says that she's a critical thinker and her conclusions evidence based. That implies knowing and following "the rules."

I wouldn't like to be stuck in a set of rules made up by someone and which govern my thinking.

You might like it better than you think. It's an extremely powerful method for generating knowledge and the only one we know that can do that.

you can believe whatever you want, but don't expect us (@Trailblazer, myself and science) to agree with you.

I don't. And I'm fine with it that you don't agree. So why contradict you if I'm not trying to change your mind? I must have another purpose. I've said what it is a few times already.

It is reasonable to step into faith from the limits of what reason and evidence can tell us.

I've already rebutted that. Faith begins where reason ends. If you can't tell me why I'm wrong, then it's perhaps because you are.

You have decided to step into non belief at those limits and I decided to step the other way. Both are reasoned choices about our worldviews.

Choosing faith is the opposite of choosing reason. You are misusing the words reason and reasonable. One may opt to hold a comforting belief, which some might call reasonable when one is uncomfortable without it, but the belief itself doesn't derive from valid reason applied to evidence.

Why not just say that God could be real and science just does not know how God works and has not got the right sensors to detect God.

I answered that already. A god exist and might have access to our reality. If it does, it is detectable and a part of that reality. If you want to say that a particular god exists, can impact reality, yet is causally disconnected from it making it undetectable, then you've taken an incoherent (internally contradictory in this case) position.

you have decided to say that science is wrong in it's neutrality about God and the supernatural and that your beliefs about God and the supernatural are correct.

Disagree. For starters, my opinions don't contradict science. Nor do I consider science wrong to take no position on unfalsifiable claims or any other insufficiently evidenced claim.

 

[leroy]

Why did you think I would be interested in that? I've already rebutted claims that any of that equates to a resurrection occurring more than once, which rebuttals you ignored and merely repeated your beliefs again unchanged.

I guess you didn't see any of this from my last two posts to you (emphasis added):

​

I see that you didn't take my request to "start addressing my objections. I've made them a few times each, and you ignore them while repeating an already rejected argument. You can start with this post. Please address every claim made in it. Really, Leroy. That's the deal. Look at the five or six answers in THIS POST and address them all. Tell me why you consider them incorrect or irrelevant, or don't bother answering. I really don't want to hear what you believe instead again."​

​

Here is a list of comments from that post that you failed to address:​

• "Why are you telling me that if one has different bedrock beliefs than I do he'll come to different conclusions?"
• "Disagree. You're making a positive claim that something is equally likely to be true as untrue if it's unknown which it is. Both parents carry the same recessive gene. We don't know if the fetus has the trait yet. The chances are not 50/50 that it does."
• "You argue that others cannot make estimates of a low likeliness, yet you would set the default position at 50% with the same information."
• "One need only rejects god claims for lack of sufficient supporting evidence to justify belief. No further argument is necessary."
• "You call John and Paul independent because they are separate people. That's not enough. So are any pair of witnesses."

I consider all of those matters resolved. You've accepted them all without rebuttal or even comment, which is the end of any debate.​

​

Can you explain that posting etiquette? Why did you choose to deny my request? You're not blind. You're fluent in English and literate. You don't seem to be here to troll. Yet my words flew by you without apparent effect. I don't expect you to ever cooperate, which is a common phenomenon with the faithful and a mystery to me, but there needs to be something in it for me to continue with you, and addressing your same arguments already rebutted while you ignore those rebuttals isn't any more appealing than reading Lincona. I don't expect answers to the two questions heading this paragraph, but don't understand how or why this happens.​

Sorry, amigo, but this is the end of this discussion. You've made your case and I've rebutted it, which rebuttals you've ignored only to repeat already answered claims. Nothing new has happened since then, and you steadfastly refuse to cooperate with me and give me what I told I need from you to continue, so I see no point. Thanks for your time. Next time, see if you can't cooperate in a discussion. You just preach. You talk without listening. That will always lead to an end of the discussion.

You literally failed to read the first sentence of the comment you are responding to.

this is the sentence that you failed to read.

"(I Will respond to this post in 3 or 4 independent comments) and whithin few days......."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You literally failed to read the first sentence of the comment you are responding to. this is the sentence that you failed to read: ""(I Will respond to this post in 3 or 4 independent comments) and within few days......."

I saw that.

Then I read what followed it, and it was more of your preaching without cooperating. I asked you to address my rebuttals, and specifically stated that failing to do that and repeating previously rebutted claims would lose my attention, yet you did it anyway. I literally predicted that you would do that as a challenge to see if any words could be written that would cause you to do that, and I failed, or rather, you did. How many more posts like that were you expecting me to read? Apparently 2 or 3 more just like that one.

You ignored this comment:

• "Can you explain that posting etiquette? Why did you choose to deny my request? You're not blind. You're fluent in English and literate. You don't seem to be here to troll. Yet my words flew by you without apparent effect. I don't expect you to ever cooperate, which is a common phenomenon with the faithful and a mystery to me, but there needs to be something in it for me to continue with you, and addressing your same arguments already rebutted while you ignore those rebuttals isn't any more appealing than reading Licona. I don't expect answers to the two questions heading this paragraph, but don't understand how or why this happens."

What does this tell me about the future of continuing this discussion? It tells me that there is some cognitive disconnect between my posting and yours that is apparently insurmountable - some impenetrable barrier to communication.

I am willing to discuss that with you, but I no longer think that's possible for you even if you were interested. And that's a huge mystery to me. I suggested multiple logically possible explanations for it, but that didn't interest you, either. Leroy, I simply cannot fathom how you think or how to reach you using language. I can't imagine anybody writing that quoted comment above to me and me not answering responsively with a good reason. I don't expect you to acknowledge this paragraph either, another one I can't imagine ignoring, but I fully expect that from you even after essentially challenging you to prove me wrong, something easily done if I were.