Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[leroy]

Really? How do you know? And that has not been the claim about Jesus anyway so why does it matter? Do you know what a red herring is? This argument of yours is an example of that. You seem to have forgotten that you in no way showed that James the brother of Jesus ever claimed to have seen him. That was explained to you earlier today, again, when you first brought up the claim.

Since no one claimed that, except for you, this also makes this a strawman argument on your part.


No, it is a misleading and errant claim. There is no agreeing with it or disagreeing with it. You should understand this. If you own up to making a poor argument then we can agree.


How did you ever misunderstand that in the way that you did?

Nope, no proof needed. All that was required was that your original error was needed to be pointed out. Also even if you wanted to use your argument against someone, the way that you phrased it you took on the burden of proof. You need to learn how to properly word your arguments. When you say "people don’t conclude that his brother resurrected because they saw someone that looks like him" You have just taken on the burden of proof. You are wrong on several levels, as usual.

Now, now, when you screw up it is very rude to make false accusations against others. You repeatedly made errors with your argument. That is your fault. Don't blame others when the mistakes were yours and yours alone.

Ok you picked option 3 as expected



“claim to disagree” and find an excuse for avoid the burden proof.

 

[leroy]

No, I told you what standard of evidence that could be used. It is well defined. If you did not understand the definition you should have owned up to that fact. So once more you are blaming others for something that you should know. You could have admitted that you do not undertand the definition of scientific evidence and I would have gladly explained to you . But when you make false charges about others and rudely say that they have done something that they have not they do not have to explain anything to you.

Own up to your errors and I will gladly give you ore details.

Again , more excuses for not defining "evidence "

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

1. Yes, probably.
2. Nor historical. Hallucinations, stories.
3. Not historical. Hallucination, most probably a false story. Paul was trying to establish his own brand of Christianity.
(It is just like Yogananda saying saying that he met Mahavatara Babaji, a supposedly immortal soul)

 

[blü 2]

Again , more excuses for not defining "evidence "

I set out the basics back at #45.

I pointed out that if Jesus "came back to life", out here in reality that must mean he was never dead; and that extraordinary claims require evidence of extraordinary quality, whereas the evidence for the resurrection is of extremely poor quality ─ a routine kind of miracle to attribute to a religious hero in that culture, no eyewitness account, no contemporary account within 20 years and none with any details within 45 years, no independent account.

Then we have Paul's mention, the four descriptions in the gospels, and the mention in Acts 1 ─ as I said, none by an eyewitness, none contemporary, none independent AND each of the 6 contradicting the other 5 in major ways.

Here are some of the contradictions I'm talking about. (I posted it once before but neglected to note the page.)

As I said earlier, you couldn't renew a dog license on evidence of that quality,
'

1. Who went to the tomb?

Paul: –
Mark: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome
Matthew: MM, MmJ
Luke: MM, MmJ, Joanna
John: MM


2. What did they see?

Paul: –
Mark: Open tomb
Matthew: An earthquake. An angel descending who rolled away the stone and sat on it.
He looked like lightning, his raiment white as snow
Luke: Open tomb
John: Open tomb


3. Were any guards there?

Paul: -
Mark: No.
Matthew: The guards trembled.
Luke: No
John: No


4. What did they do?

Paul: -
Mark: Went in.
Matthew: -
Luke: Went in
John: Ran to fetch Peter and the Beloved Disciple who ran to the tomb and saw the linen


5. Did they see anyone in or at the tomb?

Paul: -
Mark: Saw one young man in a white robe. Told Jesus had risen, and would meet the disciples at Galilee
Matthew: Addressed by an angel. Told Jesus had risen, and would meet the disciples at Galilee.
Luke: Saw two men in dazzling apparel. Told Jesus was risen.
John: No.


6. What did they do next?

Paul: -
Mark: They fled in fear.
Matthew: They left.
Luke: They went and told the eleven but weren’t believed.
John: Peter and the Beloved Disciple went home.


7. To whom did Jesus first appear?

Paul: Peter
Mark: MM
Matthew: MM and MmJ
Luke: ‘Cleopas’ (= Cephas/Peter?) and Simon
John: MM


8. How?

Paul: -
Mark: As MM fled.
Matthew: As MM and MmJ were going home. He told them he’d meet the disciples at Galilee.
Luke: As Cleopas and Simon walked to Emmaus. They didn’t recognize him. That night at dinner he broke the bread and they realized who he was.
John: At the tomb. MM mistook him for the gardener. Then she recognized him. He said, ‘Inform my brethren’.


9. What did the guards do?

Paul: -
Mark: -
Matthew: Told the chief priests. Were paid to say, Disciples stole the body.
Luke: -
John: -


10. What did the others do?

Paul: -
Mark: -
Matthew: The eleven went to Galilee.
Luke: Went to Jerusalem, told the disciples &c.
John: MM told the disciples.


11. To whom did Jesus second appear?

Paul: The twelve [sic].
Mark: ‘two of them’.
Matthew: The eleven.
Luke: The eleven and others.
John: The disciples and others


12. Where?

Paul: -
Mark: -
Matthew: At Galilee
Luke: While MM, MmJ and Joanna were reporting to the eleven.
John: At table, with doors shut


13. With what result?

Paul: -
Mark: The two told the others but weren’t believed.
Matthew: They worshiped him but some doubted. He told them to preach to all nations.
Luke: They thought he was a ghost. He reassured them. He led them to Bethany. He was carried up to heaven.
John: They were glad. He gave them the Holy Spirit and power to forgive.


14. To whom did Jesus third appear?

Paul: The five hundred.
Mark: The eleven at table. He upbraided them for their disbelief. He told them signs - demons, tongues, serpents, poisons. He went up to heaven.
Matthew: *
Luke: *
John: At the same house as before, with the doors locked. He reassured Thomas.


15. To whom did Jesus fourth appear?

Paul: James
Mark: *
Matthew: *
Luke: *
John: Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the BD and another disciple. They didn’t recognize him at first. They caught lots of fish. They recognized him at breakfast. They argued over the Beloved Disciple waiting till Jesus returned.



16. To whom did Jesus fifth appear?

Paul: All the apostles.


17. Where did Jesus ascend to heaven?

Galilee (Mark 16:7, 16:19; Matt 28:16)

Bethany / Jerusalem Luke 24:50, John, unclear, Acts 1:4+1:9

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok you picked option 3 as expected



“claim to disagree” and find an excuse for avoid the burden proof.

No, you screwed up. As usual. All of your "choices" were false. You are being.dishonest when you try to say that others have the burden of proof when it never left you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That has not been denied,

If you agree with that, then you should realize how your comment was foolish.

but what naturalism claims is that *ONLY* the natural world exists.

A claim that happens to fit the evidence. Since only evidence of the natural world exists.
I find it reasonable to tentatively accept that the supernatural doesn't exist for the same reason I find it reasonable to accept that no undetectable dragons are following me everywhere I go.

It is consistent with the evidence.

There is no conclusive evidence for that claim………… therefore (using atheist logic) I have no burden proof, nor the obligation to show that “supernatural events” happen

Haaa. I see. You are again pretending that atheism = naturalism.

That old cow.

But again though....
Saying that only the natural exists, is consistent with the evidence.
Saying no supernatural things exist, is consistent with the evidence.

Saying supernatural things DO exists, is NOT consistent with the evidence.

Do with that as you please.
Conclude from it what you wish.

But don't pretend as if your silly "argument" isn't a false equivalent.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If we define evidence as “anything that moves the weiger in favor of a claim position or view….” Then there is plenty of evidence for both sides.

I don’t understand why atheist form this forum like to play semntaics and avoid the burden proof instead of developing arguments against god (or for naturalism) this is true in general and in the specific case of the resurrection .

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Material changes and requires time to exist in. God is a spirit and does not change or require time to exist and live.

Aside from the many implied errors here.....


Please explain how you have determined that "spirits" do not change nor require time to "exist and live".

Also, you seem unaware that "to exist" and "to live" are BOTH temporal phenomenon.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So it is something that neither I nor anyone else knows. It is what I believe,

Okay. Then we can dismiss that at face value.

just as I believe that the universe and life was created and designed and did not just happen all by itself.

Last thursday?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again , more excuses for not defining "evidence "

No! You keep screwing up and taking.on the burden of proof as a result. I could quote.myself to show how I defined it. I even explained to you how I did that.

When you refuse to debate properly you can no longer make demands of others. That is why I sometimes "charge" to do what I have already done. It is not the fault of others when you refuse to understand.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In the case of Elvis or the innocence project, we are talking about a random guy that saw someone who looks like someone else. Not to mention that nobody concluded that Elvis resurrected (just that he didn’t die) In the case of Jesus we are talking about his own brother. So it is not the same, it is not analogous. There is not a single case in history where somebody claimed the resurrection of his brother, because he saw someone that looks like him.

What you're saying is that the misidentification of Elvis and convicted defendants later exonerated by the Innocence Project (and likely my wife mistaking two newscasters for being the same person) aren't relevant to the matter of people possibly misidentifying people including brothers in scripture. The burden of proof is yours to demonstrate that brothers cannot misidentify one another. I reject the claim based in my life experience and your lack of an argument.

One more noteworthy misidentification in recent American news, which you might not be aware of. There was a successful defamation lawsuit against Trump involving a multimillion-dollar judgment by a woman who claims he raped her years ago and then defamed her by publicly calling her a liar. In his defense, Trump claimed that he would never have raped her because she wasn't his type, which is a funny enough reason to give, but later, when shown the litigants picture, he misidentified her as his former wife Marla Maples, also funny. Not his type, huh? Oops!

How about addressing my leading hypothesis, myth. I'm not claiming misidentification occurred and I didn't include that in my list of naturalistic logical possibilities, but it belongs there above unfalsifiable, supernaturalistic hypotheses and below explanations that don't requite anything actually having been seen such as myth and mass delusion. Below that are explanations that involve misunderstanding what was seen, like a magic trick or misidentification of a man or an actor.

You “refuted” the claim with “elvis” and “innocence project” Do you understand why your refutation fails?

Fails at what? They're examples of misidentification. Your reasons for saying they don't pertain are irrelevant. Brothers can misidentify one another, and adding resurrection to the claim doesn't change that. But still, please leave this misidentification thing and address the myth hypothesis. There is no good reason to believe resurrection is more likely than no resurrection, no witnesses to anything, and a common demigod myth about resurrection added after the fact to have this exact effect - to be believed and serve as a core tenet of a new religious movement. Yet this is your position.

The claim is that people don’t conclude that his brother resurrected because they saw someone that looks like him. If you agree with this claim then we both agree (end of discussion) If you disagree, then you have a burden proof , and you have to show that sometimes people claim that his brother resurrected because they saw someone that looks like him

I've recently had to discuss parsimony in hypothesis formation and unfalsifiable with you. You misunderstood both terms, and now you are misunderstanding burden of proof. You couldn't have demonstrated the fallacious shifting of the burden of truth any more clearly, but unfortunately, it's you doing it. You just wrote that somebody has a burden to disprove YOUR unargued, unevidenced bare claim about what cannot happen between brothers, which I've just refuted anyway.

Or you can do what you always, “claim to disagree” and find an excuse for avoid the burden proof.

I'm getting close to that myself. I've found that making sound, evidenced arguments to you has resulted in no progress being made. You mostly didn't respond to them, and never tried to rebut one. You merely repost what you believe instead again when you do reply, and then claim that I too look for excuses to avoid a burden of proof. How many times do you expect any poster to repeat such arguments or go find links to prove they were made before reverting to simply, "I disagree for reasons already given"? I've given you that answer a few times already recently.

Material changes and requires time to exist in. God is a spirit and does not change or require time to exist and live.

What are the qualities of the nonexistent things like werewolves that distinguish them from things that exist, like wolves? How about "does not change or require time to exist and live"? I would add 'does not exist in space' and 'cannot impact or modify things that DO exist.'

Edit: added later

 

[leroy]

If you agree with that, then you should realize how your comment was foolish.



A claim that happens to fit the evidence. Since only evidence of the natural world exists.
I find it reasonable to tentatively accept that the supernatural doesn't exist for the same reason I find it reasonable to accept that no undetectable dragons are following me everywhere I go.

It is consistent with the evidence.


Haaa. I see. You are again pretending that atheism = naturalism.

That old cow.

But again though....
Saying that only the natural exists, is consistent with the evidence.
Saying no supernatural things exist, is consistent with the evidence.

Saying supernatural things DO exists, is NOT consistent with the evidence.

Do with that as you please.
Conclude from it what you wish.

But don't pretend as if your silly "argument" isn't a false equivalent.

Saying supernatural things DO exists, is NOT consistent with the evidence.

Well who knows, first you have to define some terms

1 what do you mean by evidence

2 what do you mean by “supernatural”

3 how can someone distinguish the “supernatural” from “unknown natural mechanisms”?

 

[leroy]

No! You keep screwing up and taking.on the burden of proof as a result. I could quote.myself to show how I defined it. I even explained to you how I did that.

When you refuse to debate properly you can no longer make demands of others. That is why I sometimes "charge" to do what I have already done. It is not the fault of others when you refuse to understand.

Again , more excuses for not defining "evidence "

 

[SkepticThinker]

That has not been denied, but what naturalism claims is that *ONLY* the natural world exists.

There is no conclusive evidence for that claim………… therefore (using atheist logic) I have no burden proof, nor the obligation to show that “supernatural events” happen

If you claim that supernatural events happen, then you do have the burden of proof on that claim.

 

[leroy]

What you're saying is that the misidentification of Elvis and convicted defendants later exonerated by the Innocence Project (and likely my wife mistaking two newscasters for being the same person) aren't relevant to the matter of people possibly misidentifying people including brothers in scripture. The burden of proof is yours to demonstrate that brothers cannot misidentify one another. I reject the claim based in my life experience and your lack of an argument.

That is a straw man, I will not even read the rest of your comments until you admit your mistake.

1 I am not saying that people can´t misidentify other people, that is obviously possible and very common, (Elvis, your wife innocence project) are examples of that

2 I am saying that people don’t conclude that someone resurrected just because they saw someone who looks like him, this is specially unlikely if we are talking about someone close like a brother.

So if you argue that James and the disciples concluded that Jesus resurrected because they saw someone that looks like Jesus, you are dealing with an extraordinary event that has never been reported before (it that sense this hypothesis would have the same problem than the resurrection)

Imagine that your wife happens to be a close friend of one of those newscasters, then this newscaster died, do you think it is likely that your wife would have concluded that this man resurrected just because she saw the other newscaster?

 

[leroy]

If you claim that supernatural events happen, then you do have the burden of proof on that claim.

Yes in the real world I would have a burden proof and theist usually accept that burden and provide arguments…………….. but using atheist logic I can avoid the burden proof, all I have to do is say that “there is no sufficient evidence for naturalism”

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes in the real world I would have a burden proof and theist usually accept that burden and provide arguments…………….. but using atheist logic I can avoid the burden proof, all I have to do is say that “there is no sufficient evidence for naturalism”

Don't try to blame your logical failings on atheists. They're yours alone.

Also, as another poster pointed out to you and you seem to have ignored: You're conflating "atheism" with "naturalism."

 

[leroy]

Don't try to blame your logical failings on atheists. They're yours alone.

Also, as another poster pointed out to you and you seem to have ignored: You're conflating "atheism" with "naturalism."

I find it very interesting that instead of proving me wrong, by showing that you are not avoiding the burden proof (but rather that you are willing to show that your world view is correct)……….you decided to play semantics and definitions again.

 

[paarsurrey]

Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus​

Left Coast said: #8
Because people don't come back alive after being dead for days, as a rule. It's a one way trip. Any claim of some miracle explanation for a phenomenon that violates everything we know about how the world works is going to have automatically very low plausibility.
Apologes said: #10
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. This isn't going against how the world works as its not the laws of nature that are raising the dead but an act of God. On what basis would you assign a low plausibility to God choosing to raise Jesus from the dead a priori?
paarsurrey said: #421
Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah rising from the physical dead is against Sign of Jonah, I (therefore) must say (Jesus did not resurrect at all), as I understand?
Right?

paarsurrey said: #430
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?

paarsurrey said: #449
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?

paarsurrey adds:#476
Since Jonah was a truthful prophet of G-d so applying the same criteria Jesus/Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah was also a truthful prophet, please, right?

#496
Jesus did not resurrect
The Jews of the time failed to kill Jesus (which they must have done to a false prophet in terms of Deuteronomy) this also shows that Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah was a truthful person/prophet, right?

Regards

There are many clues in the Gospels itself that Yeshua- the truthful truthful Messiah did not die on the Cross in the firs place so there is no question of his being resurrected from the dead, please, right?

Regards

 

[Colt]

Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus​

Left Coast said: #8
Because people don't come back alive after being dead for days, as a rule. It's a one way trip. Any claim of some miracle explanation for a phenomenon that violates everything we know about how the world works is going to have automatically very low plausibility.
Apologes said: #10
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. This isn't going against how the world works as its not the laws of nature that are raising the dead but an act of God. On what basis would you assign a low plausibility to God choosing to raise Jesus from the dead a priori?
paarsurrey said: #421
Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah rising from the physical dead is against Sign of Jonah, I (therefore) must say (Jesus did not resurrect at all), as I understand?
Right?

paarsurrey said: #430
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?

paarsurrey said: #449
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?

paarsurrey adds:#476
Since Jonah was a truthful prophet of G-d so applying the same criteria Jesus/Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah was also a truthful prophet, please, right?


There are many clues in the Gospels itself that Yeshua- the truthful truthful Messiah did not die on the Cross in the firs place so there is no question of his being resurrected from the dead, please, right?

Regards

There are no claims or clues that Jesus wasnt crucified in the Gospels. You are simply overlaying your disbelief onto the story, seeing things that are not there.

The creator of life can easily restore life such as the resurrection of Lazarus. The body of Jesus died on the cross, the spirit of the Son of God did not. He returned on his own just as he said that he would.


Urantia Book revelation IMOP:


189:2.6 (2023.5) The Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus has been based on the fact of the “empty tomb.” It was indeed a fact that the tomb was empty, but this is not the truth of the resurrection. The tomb was truly empty when the first believers arrived, and this fact, associated with that of the undoubted resurrection of the Master, led to the formulation of a belief which was not true: the teaching that the material and mortal body of Jesus was raised from the grave. Truth having to do with spiritual realities and eternal values cannot always be built up by a combination of apparent facts. Although individual facts may be materially true, it does not follow that the association of a group of facts must necessarily lead to truthful spiritual conclusions.

189:2.7 (2023.6) The tomb of Joseph was empty, not because the body of Jesus had been rehabilitated or resurrected, but because the celestial hosts had been granted their request to afford it a special and unique dissolution, a return of the “dust to dust,” without the intervention of the delays of time and without the operation of the ordinary and visible processes of mortal decay and material corruption.

189:2.8 (2024.1) The mortal remains of Jesus underwent the same natural process of elemental disintegration as characterizes all human bodies on earth except that, in point of time, this natural mode of dissolution was greatly accelerated, hastened to that point where it became well-nigh instantaneous.

189:2.9 (2024.2) The true evidences of the resurrection of Michael are spiritual in nature, albeit this teaching is corroborated by the testimony of many mortals of the realm who met, recognized, and communed with the resurrected morontia Master. He became a part of the personal experience of almost one thousand human beings before he finally took leave of Urantia." UB 1955