The evidence for the resurection of Jesus

[leroy]

The tomb was empty as Jesus got recovered from his unconsciousness and came out of the tomb. Why it is so difficult to understand it by our friend @leroy , please?

Regards

Ok , so you accept the empty tomb.

Do you disagree with anything in the OP?

 

[paarsurrey]

Ok , so you accept the empty tomb.

Do you disagree with anything in the OP?

Yes, the tomb was empty and Jesus was seen nearby and some ladies even talked to him. That is it. Jesus recovered from the near-dead position as did Jonah. Right?

Regards
______________
Premature burial - Wikipedia
"A New Natural Interpretation of the Empty Tomb"
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291387747_A_New_Natural_Interpretation_of_the_Empty_Tomb
Search terms: ""empty" tombs of persons buried alive"
"People burried alive"

 

[sayak83]

They are experts on all ancient documents that exists form 1st century Palestine. And Habermas only used those who have published in peer reviewed journals (therefore excluding all charlatans)

But even more impoirtant I showed that my claim is true, (my claim being that most scholars accept the emty tomb)

If you what to argue that this means very little,. Then you are making a completely different objection, which is ok, but first admit that I supported my claim and then we can move to a different topic

Most Christian religious and divinity scholars agree. There is no reason for non Christian's to believe their opinion as they are not historians. That is why a non Christian has no reason to believe in the historicity of the resurrection event.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This video addresses many of the OP's claims:

 

[leroy]

Regards
______________
Premature burial - Wikipedia
"A New Natural Interpretation of the Empty Tomb"
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291387747_A_New_Natural_Interpretation_of_the_Empty_Tomb
Search terms: ""empty" tombs of persons buried alive"
"People burried alive

No, no no, your source has advertisements, therefore I can dismiss it without any justification (usign “ @Subduction Zone " logic

Yes, the tomb was empty and Jesus was seen nearby and some ladies even talked to him. That is it. Jesus recovered from the near-dead position as did Jonah. Right?

"

Several points to consider

Crucifixion is a well document mechanism, we know that people don’t survive it

Jesus was pinched with a spear to ensure his dead

Even if he survived there is no way he could have escaped the tomb

Even if he did, he would have been dying corps urging for medical attention, he would have not impressed anybody

Jesus would have to be a Genius Liar, because not even his closest disciples nor even his brothers knew “the truth”........... Jesus prefered to lie and claim that he was risen, rather than asking for help.

The location of his new tomb (after he died for real) would have been well known and could have been exposed by the enemies.

 

[leroy]

This video addresses many of the OP's claims:

Does that video represent your views? Or would it be an other case where I refute the arguments and you simply answer with “strawman I never made such claims”

Besides It is interesting that you dismissed my source because it is “glamour press” and then you use a YouTube video to support your views. ……………….. why can’t I dismiss your video without any justification just like you have done with all my sources?

 

[leroy]

Most Christian religious and divinity scholars agree. There is no reason for non Christian's to believe their opinion as they are not historians. That is why a non Christian has no reason to believe in the historicity of the resurrection event.

Maybe, but we are talking about the empty tomb, not the resurrection itself.

75% of scholars agree with the empty tomb, this includes jews, muslims, atheists, agnostic etc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, no no, your source has advertisements, therefore I can dismiss it without any justification (usign “ @Subduction Zone " logic

Oh my!! The link is not the source where it was first published.

Are you trying to fail this badly?

Several points to consider

Crucifixion is a well document mechanism, we know that people don’t survive it

Jesus was pinched with a spear to ensure his dead

Even if he survived there is no way he could have escaped the tomb

Even if he did, he would have been dying corps urging for medical attention, he would have not impressed anybody

Jesus would have to be a Genius Liar, because not even his closest disciples nor even his brothers knew “the truth”........... Jesus prefered to lie and claim that he was risen, rather than asking for help.

The location of his new tomb (after he died for real) would have been well known and could have been exposed by the enemies.

No, no, no. You are making the foolish error of assuming that the Gospels are accurate again. In other words you are using circular reasoning. You do not "know" any of that.

This is why the most likely case is that he was probably left on the cross after he died. There was no empty tomb because there was no tomb.

If you want to claim that there was an empty tomb you need to find evidence that there even was a tomb in the first place.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does that video represent your views? Or would it be an other case where I refute the arguments and you simply answer with “strawman I never made such claims”

Besides It is interesting that you dismissed my source because it is “glamour press” and then you use a YouTube video to support your views. ……………….. why can’t I dismiss your video without any justification just like you have done with all my sources?

It is pretty close. It is not "evidence", but it is an explanation. It points out why your argument fails. It does use logic, something that your arguments have been devoid of.

 

[leroy]

No, no, no. You are making the foolish error of assuming that the Gospels are accurate again. In other words you are using circular reasoning. You do not "know" any of that.

.

No, it’s not an assumption, I trust the gospels because they are correct in most of the historical details that we can verify……………indicating that the authors where well informed and knew about the stuff that was happening

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it’s not an assumption, I trust the gospels because they are correct in most of the historical details that we can verify……………indicating that the authors where well informed and knew about the stuff that was happening

But they are not. They are merely correct in geography. There are not that many historical details and some they have have been shown to be very wrong. You cannot count the hits if you ignore the misses. And history by itself is not anywhere near enough. You are making a Spiderman fallacy again.

 

[leroy]

It is pretty close. It is not "evidence", but it is an explanation. It points out why your argument fails. It does use logic, something that your arguments have been devoid of.

Ok so would it be fare if I treat the video as something that represents your view?............ are there any relevant things in the video that you disagree with?

It does use logic, something that your arguments have been devoid of

Can you quote a single argument where I failed to use logic properly? Or should I include this in the list of false accusations that you can’t support?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe, but we are talking about the empty tomb, not the resurrection itself.

75% of scholars agree with the empty tomb, this includes jews, muslims, atheists, agnostic etc.

That claim has already been refuted.

Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so would it be fare if I treat the video as something that represents your view?............ are there any relevant things in the video that you disagree with?

Can you quote a single argument where I failed to use logic properly? Or should I include this in the list of false accusations that you can’t support?

LOL!!! You have that backwards. I don't think that I could find any post where you used logic properly.

By the way, you need to admit that you screwed up when you tried to apply my standards to journals. When you screw up you have to admit it. Otherwise there is no point in having a discussion with you.

Not only do you need to work on your logic skills you need to work on your observation skills.

 

[leroy]

But they are not. They are merely correct in geography. There are not that many historical details and some they have have been shown to be very wrong. You cannot count the hits if you ignore the misses. And history by itself is not anywhere near enough. You are making a Spiderman fallacy again.

I would say that we should consider both the hits and the misses.

But I am open minded, which objective method do you suggest that we should use to determine the historical validity of a document?

My suggestion is:

If the document is correct in most of the testable historical/geographical/politica/demographiv etc details.

If the author intended to right what actually happened

But I am open minded, which other method do you suggest and why you think your method is better than mine?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would say that we should consider both the hits and the misses.

But I am open minded, which objective method do you suggest that we should use to determine the historical validity of a document?

My suggestion is:

If the document is correct in most of the testable historical/geographical/politica/demographiv etc details.

If the author intended to right what actually happened

But I am open minded, which other method do you suggest and why you think your method is better than mine?

I agree. And when we do so there is nothing that generates believability from the statistics. Plus you are still guilty of a Spiderman Fallacy.

You also need to acknowledge your error. From now on I will merely post that. You made a HUGE error. Do you understand it?

 

[leroy]

I agree. And when we do so there is nothing that generates believability from the statistics. Plus you are still guilty of a Spiderman Fallacy.

You also need to acknowledge your error. From now on I will merely post that. You made a HUGE error. Do you understand it?

Can you please tell me what error was that?

Plus you are still guilty of a Spiderman Fallacy.

Its frustrating that you keep repeating that over and over again despite the fact that I already explained your mistake

“the author of Spiderman does not have the intent to write what really happened”

The method that I propose requires that the author of the document has the intent of writing what actually happened, in other words the author honestly and sincerely believes that the stuff that he reports is true)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you please tell me what error was that?


Its frustrating that you keep repeating that over and over again despite the fact that I already explained your mistake

“the author of Spiderman does not have the intent to write what really happened”

The method that I propose requires that the author of the document has the intent of writing what actually happened, in other words the author honestly and sincerely believes that the stuff that he reports is true)

Okay if you are not going to pay attention why should anyone even respond to you. You screwed up when you tried to apply my standards to journals. I quoted you. You had to have seen it.

Intent does not matter when you are the one making the error.

Let's focus on your gross error when you misapplied my standard.

 

[leroy]

Let's focus on your gross error when you misapplied my standard.

Granted, it was an error,

I am the first one to admit it that or don’t understand your standard, which is why I asked for further explanation in an earlier post, and until you clarify your standars I am likely to repeat the error.

intent does not matter when you are the one making the error.

I am talking about “intent of the author of a document”

If the author has knowledge about the stuff that was happening in that time/place and if the author has the intent to write real history……………..then the document is reliable.

Please let me know if you disagree with this methodology and if you disagree provide a different methodology and explain why is it better.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Granted, it was an error,

I am the first one to admit it that or don’t understand your standard, which is why I asked for further explanation in an earlier post, and until you clarify your standars I am likely to repeat the error.

Let's go over this again. A well respected professional peer reviewed journal will not have ads in it. But the source that you commented on was a reprint of an article by another source. The source copied an article from a peer reviewed journal, it was not the original source. That does not break that rule. Do you understand that?

I am talking about “intent of the author of a document”

If the author has knowledge about the stuff that was happening in that time/place and if the author has the intent to write real history……………..then the document is reliable.

Please let me know if you disagree with this methodology and if you disagree provide a different methodology and explain why is it better.

The intent of the writes of the Gospels appears to be the spread of Christianity. That does not in any way guarantee accuracy.