The evidence for the resurection of Jesus

[leroy]

That was an answer. It showed why you were wrong.

No , you avoided the question and answered something irrelevant

 

[leroy]

None of them -- in fact I wrote them because I think that they are right.

But they also provide nothing upon which I can build a logical argument for the existence (or lack thereof) of anything at all.

Because no one is claiming to have a logical argument,

All I am saying is that given these 5 facts, the resurrection becomes the best explanation for these facts……………….if you disagree you are free to provide a different explanation and explain why you think it´s a better explanation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No , you avoided the question and answered something irrelevant

No you refused to understand the answer.

 

[Rival]

If you accept all these 5 facts , my suggestion would be that the resurrection is the best explanation for these facts.

Do you have a better explanation in mind?

For example the claim that early Christians had hallucinations of the risen Jesus fails because

1 the experiences where clear and unambiguous, the saw Jesus, touched Jesus ate with Jesus, (they didn’t see a distant shadow or something like that)

2 some occurrences happened in groups (it is nearly impossible that 2 persons or more had the exact same hallucination at the same time)


3 if it would have been a hallucination, at most they would have concluded that Jesus appeared to them in a as a ghost or spirit (not as a physical body)….


Other hallucinations (Alens, gohts, krishna etc) fail to have these 3 atributes.

Yes. Mass delusions are a thing. This theory also makes sense given that the accounts don't match. My other issue is that none of these Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, just what they heard from apparent eyewitnesses, so we can't even be sure of what they saw or think they saw in the first place. It's also suspicious that no-one except Jesus' disciples, folks who already believed him, saw him. What would be more compelling would be if he appeared to the folks he'd been arguing with the whole time, for example. Other things are reported, such as earthquakes, dead folks coming out of their graves and what not - these elements all add up to make these puported risen Jesus appearances much less compelling. There's also the claim that Mary had no idea who Jesus even was as we all know her 'supposing him to be the gardener' - which doesn't really make sense if she'd been hanging around this man for a year or so, only not to recognise him at this crucial moment. The original ending of Mark's Gospel helps the case even less, as it only leaves us with an empty tomb and the two women saying nothing 'because they were afraid'.

The internal inconsistencies just take away any believability for me.

 

[leroy]

No you refused to understand the answer.

Ok granted, I admit that I didn’t understand you answer………………..claim to explain it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The article written by WLC is just an article that represents my view, if you disagree with any claim in the article please let me know specifically what claim is that, and we can then go with the experts.

Then why even link it? We really don't care if a failed Liar for Jesus agrees with you. You need to support your claims.

 

[HonestJoe]

Because you need point 1 + all the others to establish that the resurrection probably happened…………

I disagree that the existence of God is required for the resurrection to have happened. Someone could have turned up in the Middle East claiming to be the son of God, been killed and then somehow come back from the dead without the involvement of the Biblical God. Some other as yet unknown mechanism, force or power could have been involved instead. It's unlikely but it is no less possible.

I am not claiming that it is a “definitive fact” all I am saying is that given the evidence that we have to date , the claim is more likely to be true than wrong. (any disagreement?)

Yes, I disagree. Based on the (highly limited) evidence available, we cannot say it is more likely than not that Jesus' tomb was found to be empty. We simply don't know.

ok so you agree with fact 5

I agree with the basic fact. I disagree that it means the resurrection is any more likely to be true.

It seems to me that you are accepting that all these 5 claims are probably true (more likely to true than false)………..is this correct? Or would you say that some of the claims are more likelyl to be wrong?

I think the points about Jesus' actual death are now more (or less) likely to be true or false. We simply don't (and probably never can) know. I think most of the points are irrelevant to the question of the resurrection anyway and none of them provide direct evidence for that specific claim, there being clear mundane explanations for every aspect.

 

[leroy]

Yes. Mass delusions are a thing. This theory also makes sense given that the accounts don't match. My other issue is that none of these Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, just what they heard from apparent eyewitnesses, so we can't even be sure of what they saw or think they saw in the first place. It's also suspicious that no-one except Jesus' disciples, folks who already believed him, saw him. What would be more compelling would be if he appeared to the folks he'd been arguing with the whole time, for example. Other things are reported, such as earthquakes, dead folks coming out of their graves and what not - these elements all add up to make these puported risen Jesus appearances much less compelling. There's also the claim that Mary had no idea who Jesus even was as we all know her 'supposing him to be the gardener' - which doesn't really make sense if she'd been hanging around this man for a year or so, only not to recognise him at this crucial moment. The original ending of Mark's Gospel helps the case even less, as it only leaves us with an empty tomb and the two women saying nothing 'because they were afraid'.

The internal inconsistencies just take away any believability for me.

This theory also makes sense given that the accounts don't match.

My other issue is that none of these Gospels were written by eyewitnesses

The internal inconsistencies just take away any believability for me

If you grant those 5 facts then None of these objection is relevant.

It's also suspicious that no-one except Jesus' disciples, folks who already believed him, saw him.

That is wrong

Paul and James where not Christians and they “saw something” after seeing the risen Jesus they became Christians.

Also the Christian movement exploded and became relevant after Jesus died, implying that many non believers “saw something”

yes. Mass delusions are a thing.

Nothing analogous to what happened 2000 years ago has ever been reported.

 

[leroy]

Then why even link it? We really don't care if a failed Liar for Jesus agrees with you. You need to support your claims.

Granted, I am willing to support any claim, just tell me which specific claim do you think is wrong, so that I can support it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok granted, I admit that I didn’t understand you answer………………..claim to explain it?

You were asking about him historians treat supernatural claims. They tend to ignore them. I cited the Iliad as an example. There was a war. That much was true. And that was about it. There probably was an itinerant preacher named Jesus that was crucified. But that was about it. The extraordinary claims would all require extraordinary evidence for them and there does not appear to be any. Even the out of the ordinary claims would require strong evidence for them and that is totally lacking. An out of the ordinary claim would be that Jesus was buried. All you have are the claims, but no evidence of that event. That is why many, if not most scholars think that Jesus would have been left up on the cross as other political criminals were.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Granted, I am willing to support any claim, just tell me which specific claim do you think is wrong, so that I can support it.

Go back to my first response.

 

[Rival]

If you grant those 5 facts then None of these objection is relevant.

They are relevant because I see no reason to take these accounts at face value, which you obviously do as a Christian. I'm having problems with the accounts themselves and their lack of integrity.

That is wrong

Paul and James where not Christians and they “saw something” after seeing the risen Jesus they became Christians.

Also the Christian movement exploded and became relevant after Jesus died, implying that many non believers “saw something”

Paul had a vision, which is not the same - and it is also described in two conflicting ways, as well. So that's out the window for me. The movement exploded for a number of reasons; the main one being that what Christianity gave its believers in terms of rights and community was far and away better than what marginalised classes such as women and slaves had ever had before. It exploded also as there was already a large community of Godfearers who for whatever reason wouldn't join the Jewish nation and Christianity gave them another kind of shot at that without needing to convert to Judaism. There are many social reasons why Christianity was a good idea for many folks.

Nothing analogous to what happened 2000 years ago has ever been reported.

So?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Because no one is claiming to have a logical argument,

All I am saying is that given these 5 facts, the resurrection becomes the best explanation for these facts……………….if you disagree you are free to provide a different explanation and explain why you think it´s a better explanation.

Well, that's your problem. You are claiming that you present

1 The existence of God is at least possible (if you are an agnostic or even a weak atheist you should accept this point, only strong atheist that affirm conclusive evidence against God would deny this point) - While that might be taken to be true, it says absolutely nothing about the Resurrection. Assuming a God exists says not the slightest thing about the resurrection of a dead human being whose state of bodily (and most importantly brain) decomposition has begun. It is evidence of nothing whatever to do with your thesis.

2 Jesus died on the cross - so say the Gospels, but so what? The Gospels were written 35 - 65 years after the events. Give me an example of any story that you think could be accurately written today that actually occurred between 1956 and 1986 about which the only evidence you had was hear-say, passed by word of mouth until now. No photos, no videos, no newspaper clippings to help you. Just the words of people passing things along over the years.

3 Jesus was buried - as above, but also the previous - being buried has nothing to do with being resurrected.

4 The tomb was found empty - As I pointed out in my post, how, by whom, in what condition and attended by who all depend on which of the Gospels, written so long after the events you happen to believe. But lets assume for a moment that it is correct. So what? Bodies were removed from tombs and taken elsewhere even back then, as happens even today with famous people. Philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre's body was exhumed and cremated and his ashes reburied. Trust me, he was not resurrected. And just so, an empty tomb does not make a case for bodily resurrection.

5 Early Christians had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus - Read the writings of the eminent (now deceased) neurologist Dr. Oliver Sacks, if you want to know something about the strange things people believe they have experienced. You might begin with "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat." And also, see point 2 about how long after the events these supposed experiences were recounted.

And finally, how many other resurrections have you heard about? Yes, there were a few -- all of them before Jesus, and all rather strikingly similar to that described for Jesus, which should lead one to wonder whether or not there was any plagiarizing going on. But also notice that it seems to be something that doesn't happen any more.

 

[McBell]

These “empty” claims are supported by the majority of experts,…. Do your own research on any source that you would consider reliable, if after doing your research you find out that some of these claims are likely to be wrong, feel free to elaborate your arguments and present your case.

If you are not willing to do this, then find someone else to discuss with.

If you are not going to support your bold empty claims, then they will be dismissed as bold empty claims.

Now since I strongly suspect that you never had any intentions of even trying to support your bold empty claims...

 

[McBell]

Be specific, exactly which claim do you think is not supported by the majority of experts? So that I can support it

All of the claims you made that you claim the "majority of experts" support.

 

[McBell]

Granted, I am willing to support any claim, just tell me which specific claim do you think is wrong, so that I can support it.

Except that you have not supported a single claim made in the OP...

In fact, you have gone to great lengths to avoid supporting your bold empty claims made in the OP...

 

[lukethethird]

The evidence for the resurection of Jesus
Ha, in your dreams.

 

[leroy]

If you are not going to support your bold empty claims, then they will be dismissed as bold empty claims.

Now since I strongly suspect that you never had any intentions of even trying to support your bold empty claims...

I will not start an argument from zero, the OP assumes that you are already familiar with the arguments and evidence typically provided by apologetics

This short article summarizes and represent my view

The Resurrection of Jesus | Reasonable Faith

if there is a specific claim that you would argue is wrong, please quote that specific claim and explain why you think is wrong, then I will reply and so on……………..if you are not willing to do this, the please do not expect to have a conversation with me.

 

[leroy]

All of the claims you made that you claim the "majority of experts" support.

Again, find and quote a specific claim that you would affirm is wrong based on the evidence that you have seen.

 

[McBell]

Again, find and quote a specific claim that you would affirm is wrong based on the evidence that you have seen.

You provided the specific claims in the OP.

Are you saying you lost the OP?