The evidence for the resurection of Jesus

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Ok.

Then we have nothing to talk about. In this case, I will, just as I announced already, dismiss your baseless claims at face value on the grounds of you completely failing to support any of them.

Also, here is your well earned trophy:

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

I'm not at all interested in the ramblings of the dishonest William Lame Craig.

 

[leroy]

Historical events can be verified by different outside sources. Claims of supernatural events cannot.
.

Again, why not? ……. What stops you for proving/verifying supernatural claims?........... If I tell you that there is a ghost in my house, I am pretty sure you can think of many ways in which you could verify my claim to see if its true or not. ,

 

[leroy]

Ok.

Then we have nothing to talk about. In this case, I will, just as I announced already, dismiss your baseless claims at face value on the grounds of you completely failing to support any of them.

Yes you won !!!

I'm not at all interested in the ramblings of the dishonest William Lame Craig.

Ok then justify your accusations, go to the source and quote any comment that you think is dishonest, and then justify and explain why it is dishonest.

Just kidding, nobody is expecting you to support your claims, nor your accusations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok support the claim (in red) with evidence.

Nope, you are dodging. I have supported that in the past. You were asked to support your claims in the OP a long time ago. You do not get to demand evidence until after you provide evidence for the claims that you made. I and others asked first.

Of course we all know that you have no evidence for your claims except for bogus apologist sites. You need to find something a bit more reliable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then you have a very easy task, just go to the source, quote a lie (or mistake) and then explain and justify why that is a lie or a mistake.



The Resurrection of Jesus | Reasonable Faith

No, I am not doing your homework for you. And you know that WLC is a failed hack. That evidence was posted to you many times in the past. You are dodging.

Try again. Support the claims that you made first and then you might be able to ask for evidence from others.

 

[leroy]

We don’t know if he (Jesus) was (Buried).

we have 3 lines of evidence that suggests that Jesus was burried

1 We have atleast 2 early and independent sources that confirm the burial (Paul and Mark)

2 He was buried by Joseph of Arimathea, As a member of the Jewish court that condemned Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention. There was strong resentment against the Jewish leadership for their role in the condemnation of Jesus It is therefore highly improbable that Christians would invent a member of the court that condemned Jesus who honors Jesus

3 No other competing burial story exists. If the burial by Joseph were fictitious, then we would expect to find either some historical trace of what actually happened to Jesus’ corpse or at least some competing legends. But all our sources are unanimous on Jesus’ honorable interment by Joseph.

(The Resurrection of Jesus | Reasonable Faith)


why isent this evidence sufficient for you? what else do you need to conclude that probably* jesus was burried, ?

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

Jesus was not a criminal from the point of view of the romans, “invenmting” new religion was not a crime, reinterpreting the Jewish scripture was not a crime, Romans didn’t care about that stuff.

We know that at least some crucified Jews were buried (we have found their bodies) and Joseph of Arimathea was a wealthy and influential man Pilate would have made an exception if someone like Joseph asks for the body. (Pilate didn’t have anything personal against Jesus, he would have not care if someone wanted give Jesus a proper burial)

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

Atheist scholar Even Gert L¸demann says
,

, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”

why would you say that he is wrong?

The main source for this is Paul, he was a witness, (he saw something that he interpreted as the risen jesus) he also knew James Peter and some of the other apostoles, so he would have know if they also “saw something”

Then we have the gosples which are independent sources and confirm what Paul said.

What else do you what? this is the best kind of evidence that you will ever get from claims about ancient history,

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

Peace

Assuming that all 5 facts are true, what alternative expalanation would you suggest? And why is that better than the resurrection hypothesis?

 

[Subduction Zone]

1 We have atleast 2 early and independent sources that confirm the burial (Paul and Mark)

No, you don't. Paul is not an independent source. In fact your own source provides the link that supports that claim in regards to Paul:

'3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.'

Did you see that? He bases all of his claims on "the Scriptures" not upon witnesses of any sort. Paul is far from independent. Nor is he a valid source. The supposed "Scriptures" might be but they do not appear to exist.

 

[leroy]

Nope, you are dodging. I have supported that in the past. You were asked to support your claims in the OP a long time ago. You do not get to demand evidence until after you provide evidence for the claims that you made. I and others asked first.

Of course we all know that you have no evidence for your claims except for bogus apologist sites. You need to find something a bit more reliable.

Ok so you don’t have evidence for your claims

 

[leroy]

No, I am not doing your homework for you. And you know that WLC is a failed hack. That evidence was posted to you many times in the past. You are dodging.

Try again. Support the claims that you made first and then you might be able to ask for evidence from others.

You are accusing the source written by WLC for being a liar, all I am asking you is to support your claims and to quote the lies……………………why can’t you do it? …

My theory

Perhaps you read the article, found zero lies or mistakes , but you are to arrogant to admit your mistake.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are accusing the source written by WLC for being a liar, all I am asking you is to support your claims and to quote the lies……………………why can’t you do it? …

My theory

Perhaps you read the article, found zero lies or mistakes , but you are to arrogant to admit your mistake.

It has been supported. And I will do so again, but since we asked you to support your claims first you need to do that.

After you find valid sources that support your claims in the OP then you can begin to make demands of others. And did you not see the verse that I quoted? I got that from the article. It shows that WLC was either mistaken or lying when he made his claim about Paul being an independent source. He was not a source at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so you don’t have evidence for your claims

It appears that you think that the Ninth Commandment does not apply to you. I explained to you why you cannot demand evidence right now. You need to support your claims first. Until you do so you have no grounds to demand evidence from anyone.

 

[leroy]

No, you don't. Paul is not an independent source. In fact your own source provides the link that supports that claim in regards to Paul:

'3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.'

Did you see that? He bases all of his claims on "the Scriptures" not upon witnesses of any sort. Paul is far from independent. Nor is he a valid source. The supposed "Scriptures" might be but they do not appear to exist.

You still don’t understand what independent means despite, the fact that I have explained your mistake multiple times.

Independent simply means that Paul and Mark got their information from different sources.

'

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.'

Did you see that? He bases all of his claims on "the Scriptures" not upon witnesses of any sort. Paul is far from independent. Nor is he a valid source. The supposed "Scriptures" might be but they do not appear to exist.

Paul is not saying that he received the information from “the scriptures” (which would be the old testament)

Paul is simply quoting from an early “pre Poline” tradition, he is simply explanaing what Christians form his day are claiming.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You still don’t understand what independent means despite, the fact that I have explained your mistake multiple times.

Independent simply means that Paul and Mark got their information from different sources.

'


Paul is not saying that he received the information from “the scriptures” (which would be the old testament)

Paul is simply quoting from an early “pre Poline” tradition, he is simply explanaing what Christians form his day are claiming.

LOL!! Epic fail.

 

[leroy]

It has been supported. And I will do so again, but since we asked you to support your claims first you need to do that.

After you find valid sources that support your claims in the OP then you can begin to make demands of others. And did you not see the verse that I quoted? I got that from the article. It shows that WLC was either mistaken or lying when he made his claim about Paul being an independent source. He was not a source at all.

Or perhaps you have no idea on what Independent actually means.

but since we asked you to support your claims first you need to do that.

Ok just tell me what claim am I suppose to support. Why don’t we start with the claim that you disagree the most?

For example when I ask you to support your claims, I always tell you exactly what claim is that

1 That WLC is a liar

2 That Romans never (or almost never) allowed for the burial of crucified people in Judea durign the 1st century

See these are specific claims, I never ask for something ambiguous and unrealistic such as” support every single claim” (without even quoting the claims)

 

[leroy]

LOL!! Epic fail.

Again, quote my specific comment, and explain why is that an “epic fail”

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, quote my specific comment, and explain why is that an “epic fail”

No need.
Start posting evidence for your claims and then you can demand evidence from others. If not my posts are all proven to be correct by your poor standards.

 

[leroy]

I'm not at all interested in the ramblings of the dishonest William Lame Craig.

Support your accusation, go to the article, quote the specific words, and expalin why is that “dishonest”

Asking you to identify your specific points of disagreement and explain why you disagree is not “dodging the ball”

It is just an honest attempt to focus on a relevant point where is disagreement between us, ……………………………… I mean if you ever make a thread supporting evolution (Darwinism) I would be happy to spot my specific points of disagreement so that we can focus on those points…………….. I wouldn’t ask you to support “every single claim”……….. and then repeat like a parrot “there is no evidence” “there is no evidence” “there is no evidence” without any clarification on why I disagree.

 

[leroy]

No need.
Start posting evidence for your claims and then you can demand evidence from others. If not my posts are all proven to be correct by your poor standards.

Ok, once again you asserted that I failed, and you didn’t quote the mistake nor even justify why I failed……….

Will you ever support your assertions? Will you ever support your accusations?

 

[leroy]

You've clearly confused unsubstantiated claims with verifiable evidence.

Well this is my idea of how conversations are supposed to flow in a forum, if you have a different idea of how conversations are supposed to be, then perhaps you should find someone else to talk with.

1 I make claims and explain why I think those claims are true

2 You spot your specific points of disagreement

3 We start a conversation on those specific points of disagreement where we both present our arguments and evidences.

At this moment I am waiting for you or any other atheist to complete point 2

I honestly don’t understand why internet atheist unwilling to have a conversation under this format,

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, once again you asserted that I failed, and you didn’t quote the mistake nor even justify why I failed……….

Will you ever support your assertions? Will you ever support your accusations?

Not an assertion. An observation. I do not have all day to attempt to educate you.

When you post evidence for your claims then you can demand evidence. Until you do that you are only dodging.