• 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 evidence for the resurection of Jesus

leroy

Well-Known Member
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...
I will only support specific claims, and only those claims that you can quote and that you would affirm that are likely to be wrong,

This is not a new topic, you are expected to be familiar with the arguments, and any discussion would be on specific points of disagreement.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
I will not start an argument from zero,
Except that that is exactly you did with the OP...

the OP assumes that you are already familiar with the arguments and evidence typically provided by apologetics
The OP assumes far to much.
And the author of the OP is going to great lengths to dodge their burden of proof.

if you are not willing to do this, the please do not expect to have a conversation with me.
I do not expect to have anything that resembles an honest discussion with you about any religious topic.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
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.
A site that is so poor and was written by such a hack that you do not even copy and paste any of the arguments. WLC is only impressive to those that already drink the Kool Aid.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
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.
Once again, all of your claims in the OP. they have already been refuted so there is not much point. Here is a suggestion, bring them up one at a time. You made five claims, that is at least five separate posts. Don't start a new topic until the previous one is finished.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
The evidence for the resurrection is grounded on 5 claims that are widely accepted by scholars (and people in general)

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)

2 Jesus died on the cross

3 Jesus was buried

4 The tomb was found empty

5 Early Christians had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus

As a non beliver you have 4 alternatives

1 Reject some of these facts and explain why you think scholars are wrong

2 Accept this facts and provide an alternative explanation , and explain why is that explanation better than the resurrection hypothesis

3 a combination of 1 and 2

4 Do something dishonest like chaning the topic, ignoring the challenge, refute a strawman etc.

So which one do you pick?

You've clearly confused unsubstantiated claims with verifiable evidence.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
As a living equal human life. My two human parents in a human science intelligence claim had sex and produced my life.

Human.

If you ask was Jesus a real human, then you own two conditions to argue.

1. is a human a supernatural being.
2. was a human using a name owner of the use "a name?"

A human knows that two humans always precede them when they theory science as that human.

Then you get into the supernatural event itself....science cause. Conditions that never pre existed that suddenly manifest as a conjured human aware confessed reality. Phenomena.

To then conclude a theist book writer was discussing science consciously as a theist and the theist, a human group of men proven wrong. As what they concluded as I am the highest intelligence gave an answer. No you are just the Destroyer mentality.

How many scientists as humans would cope today being told their so called intelligent belief is self destructive and mean it when they discuss it?

Being a human who had nearly died as a baby. I reasoned what human brain mind psychic ability was. Involving the reason I nearly died......a condition of a lived human experience, a disease. A disease that involves temperature changes and bodily suffering. As a logical human explanation what phenomena is as a human discussion and how it involves phenomena. Without being told I am delusional.

When the nasty minded human who preaches that claim is stating as I am far more superior in my human intelligence than your own self.

Which takes you back to the human scientist mentality....what did you know about change when change in science had not yet existed?

As your attempt to disclaim that a human in a phenomena experience was lying about, when you own that claim personally in the statements science.

Reason....since when did you invent creation by your thinking ability?

The status Jesus teaching was about human consciousness if you cared to reason the teaching correctly.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
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)

It depends on what god or gods you speak. The evidence of the God of Abraham is relatively strong. Prophets that purportedly represent Him have had a profound experience influence on the course of history though the example of their lives and Teachings. Christians, Muslims, Jews and Baha’is all clearly believe in the God of Abraham and make up about 55% of the world’s population. The influence of Christianity and Islam on the course of history is undeniable. Some Adherents of other faiths also practice monotheism.

However this doesn’t prove a resurrection. Christians are the only group that believes in the resurrection and a significant minority of Christians no longer hold this belief.

2 Jesus died on the cross

Most historians of antiquity, even atheists, would agree. However being crucified doesn’t increase your chances of being resurrected more than any other type of death.

3 Jesus was buried

We don’t know if he was.

4 The tomb was found empty

It is unlikely that one who died a criminal’s death would have been buried in a tomb.

5 Early Christians had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus

We have no reliable accounts of first hand witnesses to verify this let alone independent corroboration.

As a non beliver you have 4 alternatives

1 Reject some of these facts and explain why you think scholars are wrong

Most scholars would reject the resurrection though admittedly many Christians scholars would support it.

2 Accept this facts and provide an alternative explanation , and explain why is that explanation better than the resurrection hypothesis

As above, I accept some of the facts, but none would lead to a conclusion Jesus was physically resurrected.

Peace
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Science the topic theism a human choice.

That pre owned a human want.

Where did I come from.

A father in human life is not quantified a father until human sex with a human female owning a human baby conception is gained.

If a human man says I came from God then first his claim is I was therefore God

In science a human knows science is thought about first form. Planet. One mass stone. The entity planet formed it's own heavens from what science says is a reactive God. Volcanic.

We know we are not one God stone.
We know we are not the spirit of the heavens from reactive God.

Then a theist quotes ground dust reacting. Which introduces the extra force that changed ground state. UFO.

Science with machine that needed life first to own machine capability is first.

Machine first needed its life source to be machine

Ignored in science today.

The theist for science inventive creating.

Not God.

So when a human asks where did I come from.

First answer not from garden nature body wood.

As we are human. We live standing on the ground

No use claiming living on ground that you came out of water. Might be why science tried to flood and put back on the ground water mass.

If you imply human intelligence.

To cause natural reversal to a pre theoried human science status about the planet.

If science as a human says science comparing self living human form to an ape is closest science info. Then it was said with a human status of inferred human life safety against theistic lying.

Mr I know it all.

Who today did not begin science machine thesis from life after the earth ice age.

Who today did not bible theory God after an ice age either.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
The evidence for the resurrection is grounded on 5 claims that are widely accepted by scholars (and people in general)

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)

2 Jesus died on the cross

3 Jesus was buried

4 The tomb was found empty

5 Early Christians had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus

As a non beliver you have 4 alternatives

1 Reject some of these facts and explain why you think scholars are wrong

2 Accept this facts and provide an alternative explanation , and explain why is that explanation better than the resurrection hypothesis

3 a combination of 1 and 2

4 Do something dishonest like chaning the topic, ignoring the challenge, refute a strawman etc.

So which one do you pick?

One question first, please!

From the time that the tomb of Jesus was closed and left, to the time that Magdalene (and others) arrived back on Sunday Morning (1st day of week) how many hours passed by, please?

Thank you.
 

Marcion

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
As a Jesuist type of person, I try to ignore the crucifixion and resurrection myth and prefer focusing more on the mission and teachings of Jesus himself.

Jesuism - Wikipedia
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
If a human theist a scientist. Just a human tells me that life continues existence due to a light constant. Spirit cold gas not burning once then sacrificed. Now burning.

Light constant he says. Supposedly he is intelligent.

Sacrifice of spirit he says owns life. Sacrifice of spirit allows life to live. We can still exist in darkness just not healthily.

The human who teaches I would state light allows life to exist and be healthy. What sacrifice of a gas as a Spirit body meant.

And be intelligent.

we dont really know what occult minds really believe today. The psyche no longer lives in balances due to extra UFO status

The theist of science.

If light in day went dark then the sacrifice ended. A teaching. The sacrifice stopped they said. Not advising humans light constant was the sacrifice.

What about life continuance the thinker would have said. Oh no life is going to end. The day went dark.

The exact experience.

Light resurrected itself was not God but the heavenly spirit.

Light burning status not named. Science says it is a constant

That status not taught. The sacrifice spirit a gas is constant. Natural light. The origin realisation not any teaching.

Hence scientist you are a proven coercer liar.

Your history is always just about your group. Your status. Your teachings

Not reality as natural. Your history is a fake mother a sophist.

Your ideals I preach a false mother. False female and then abused the inequality of your preaching. Science statements. Female life real. Science mother fake for machine life.

Lived. Experienced. Equality of a human fought for.

My brother my life equal. Fought on my behalf. Who said my mother is my sister who is her daughter. Science ignored that teaching.

Holy.

Science is the occult. UFO status radiation extra.

The light constant is not extra radiation. It is voided cooling in space.

Creation existed in space conditions.

Life existed inside heavenly conditions.

A teaching.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Be specific based on the evidence that you have seen, which of these claims do you think is more likely wrong than correct.

You're the one asking me to accept them as correct.
Upto you to support these points with evidence.

Don't shift the burden of proof.


Nobody is claiming that these are establish 100% certain facts, all I am saying is that based on the evidence that we have to date these claims are more likely to be true than false

No you claimed that scholars and historians accept these points as correct / very likely correct by consensus.

I reject that claim.

………………..if you disagree then please tell me which specific claims do you think are more likely false and why

They are your claims. Don't shift the burden of proof.
You claimed the majority of historians accept these points. You have not provided evidence for that, for example.

As for your 5 points, you have no provided evidence for any of them either.
All you have are bare claims and declarations.

Don't ask me to "disprove" them if you can't even be bothered to properly support them yourself, or at least attempt to.




To quote The Hitch: what is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
 

TagliatelliMonster

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


Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people have reported to see Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson after they both died.

Does that mean it is "probable" that they resurected?

What kind of playground logic is this?

the claim is that if you agree with these 5 facts, the resurrection becomes the best hypothesis to explain such facts. (any disagreement?)

Supernatural, magic shenannigans for which no evidence exists is NEVER "the best" hypothesis.
EVER if we grant all 5 points, any one of the following explanations would be FAR superior:

- they lied
- they were honestly mistaken


We have precedents of both, even in modern times.
We have zero precedents of supernatural shenannigans.
.
Occam's razor.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I will only support specific claims

Ok.

It concerns these 5 specific claims:


1 The existence of God is at least possible

2 Jesus died on the cross

3 Jesus was buried

4 The tomb was found empty

5 Early Christians had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus

, and only those claims that you can quote and that you would affirm that are likely to be wrong,

Why would I have to affirm them to be "likely wrong"?
You're the one making the claims and the argument. Upto you to support them with evidence to demonstrate that there "likely correct".

If you can't do so, why would we assume them to be "likely correct"?

For you to make your case properly, it is completely irrelevant if we can show them wrong or not.
Us not being able to show them wrong, does not somehow magically make them correct, nor does that count as support in favor of your bold empty claims.

Again: what is asserted without evidence, will be dismissed without evidence.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Since Roman crucifixions almost always ended up with the body left on the cross you and those that believe this have a heavy burden of proof to support this claim. It appears all that they have is the Bible.
Ok support the claim (in red) with evidence.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Ok.

It concerns these 5 specific claims:





Why would I have to affirm them to be "likely wrong"?
You're the one making the claims and the argument. Upto you to support them with evidence to demonstrate that there "likely correct".

If you can't do so, why would we assume them to be "likely correct"?

.


These are very wide claims, I will not elaborate a 5 arguments from zero , this thread presupposes that you are already familiar with the evidence typically provided by apolegetics, any discussion between you and I would be on specific points of disagreement

This short article explains why are these claims likely to be true, please feel free to spot you specific points of disagreement and explain why you disagree.




The Resurrection of Jesus | Reasonable Faith
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
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...
Again, I will only focus on the specific points that you disagree with, so please tell me exactly where is your point of disagreement

This thread presupposes that you are already familiar with the arguments and evidence for each of these 5 claims

This article summarizes the evidence for these claims

The Resurrection of Jesus | Reasonable Faith

So go to the article and find a specific point that you disagree with.
 
Top