The evidence for the resurection of Jesus

[QuestioningMind]

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,

All you did was make unsubstantiated claims, that's my point of disagreement. You have offered absolute no verifiable evidence for any of your unsubstantiated claims. If you want to have a conversation then you should respond by providing your verifiable evidence for the unsubstantiated claims you have made. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

 

[leroy]

All you did was make unsubstantiated claims, that's my point of disagreement. You have offered absolute no verifiable evidence for any of your unsubstantiated claims. If you want to have a conversation then you should respond by providing your verifiable evidence for the unsubstantiated claims you have made. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

The problem is that your “objection” is too vague and ambiguous. All you do is repeat like a parrot “there is no evidence” “there is no evidence” .. what you are expected to do is expalin why isent the data provided not “good enough” to qualify as evidnece.



this short article sumerices my view and expalins why I think each of the points are more likely to be true
The Resurrection of Jesus | Reasonable Faith

if you disagree then you are expected to find and quote the specific points of disagreement and to expalin why you disagree,

Its to easy to simply repeat “no evidence” “no evidence” “no evidence” “no evidence”

 

[leroy]

Not an assertion. An observation.

Then you are expected to quote the exact text that you “observed” and explain why is that a “fail”.

 

[McBell]

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?

He has flat out stated numerous times that he will support his claims right after you support your claims.
Now since we all know you are not going to support your claims...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then you are expected to quote the exact text that you “observed” and explain why is that a “fail”.

Nope.

You don't get to demand evidence until you provide the evidence that you were asked for first.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He has flat out stated numerous times that he will support his claims right after you support your claims.
Now since we all know you are not going to support your claims...

As usual he knows he cannot support his claims so he thinks that he can win by playing dodgeball.

 

[rational experiences]

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?



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.

When I was gas burnt irradiated. Preceding each night I would wake up with a roof thud.

As if something hit or landed on my house.

Science is doing atmospheric experiments.

You are an equal human life to mine.

Stated taught for a human reason. When you don't get treated equally.

I saw black brown wisping smoking effect in my attack brain prickling.

Images of Michael Jackson Elvis plus aliens plus stone statue types of faces emerged with past male human images.

I gathered it was cooling. The images floated above ground and disappeared.

I thought about the attack.

As both humans owned multi recorded imaged transmitted I believed transmitted human designed machine causes were effected.

Common sense actually.

Machine experiments attacking machine conditions. Science. A practice controlled machine. Humans.

I knew the machine owns no self volition. The human designer with self human intent controlled the machines. As if machine was a self extension.

Could not achieve water mass loss replacement in flooding if you did not believe in water removal and replacement when water never went anywhere.

What self possession theism is.

We are mainly water.

If science theorised when we never existed he means when water itself never existed.

How you destroy life.

 

[QuestioningMind]

The problem is that your “objection” is too vague and ambiguous. All you do is repeat like a parrot “there is no evidence” “there is no evidence” .. what you are expected to do is expalin why isent the data provided not “good enough” to qualify as evidnece.



this short article sumerices my view and expalins why I think each of the points are more likely to be true
The Resurrection of Jesus | Reasonable Faith

if you disagree then you are expected to find and quote the specific points of disagreement and to expalin why you disagree,

Its to easy to simply repeat “no evidence” “no evidence” “no evidence” “no evidence”

Let's start with your first unsubstantiated claim, that it is widely agreed among scholars that your five points are true. The linked article makes it very clear that there is NOT a consensus among scholars that this Jesus character even existed. Since you've provided no evidence for this initial claim, all of the claims that come afterward can be dismissed as unfounded.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...xist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/

 

[shunyadragon]

Again, why not? ……. What stops you for proving/verifying supernatural claims?...........

Supernatural claims such as the Resurrection lack any objective evidence to justify any sort of proof. All you have is at best second or third person claims of testimony with no documents dated to the time of the life of Jesus Christ. No records outside the NT at the time of the life of Jesus Christ even reported his existence, nor the supernatural events of his life.

Many ancient persons on ancient history have supernatural events attributed to their lives, but no verifiable evidence to support the claims.

Proof has a very high bar that is not met by any claims of supernatural claims of events.

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. ,

So far there has not been any objective verifiable evidence of ghosts, Big Foot, and Chinese dragons anywhere. There is an abundant anecdotal subjective claims, but not verifiable.

 

[paarsurrey]

The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus

Jesus did not die on the Cross to start with and we find clues/arguments very much from the 4-Gospels itself to that affect, so there is no question of Jesus' resurrection. Right?
Pauline-Christianity is based on a made-up vision of Paul (and the credulous Pauline-Christians, mislead by him believe it) with below mentioned false creeds, I understand:

1. Jesus s/o Mary died a cursed death on the Cross (with no reliable eyewitness to narrate it)
2. to lift the burden of the sins of the Christians including Paul and the disciples and or the Apostles
3. Jesus s/o Mary rose from the dead, (it is false concept), as he did not die on the Cross to start with, (it was crafted to make Jesus God, which is never true).
4. And then Jesus s/o Mary secretly traveled to Galilee (a wrong pretext, if Jesus s/o Mary was God then he needed not to move about secretly)
5. and from Galilee Jesus s/o Mary ascended to the skies (another wrong claim, if Jesus was God he would have ascended to skies right from Golgotha where he was put on the Cross)
6. (What facility is there in Galilee that made it easier for Jesus to ascend to sky from Galilee that was not available in Golgotha)
7. And Jesus sat on the right hand of God-the-Father and the "spectators" saw him seated (none mentioned by names and other verifiable antecedents of them)
8. (And none of them mentioned as to how long did they see Jesus in the sky and then he disappeared from the sky, and why can’t they see him now seated there.)

Paul in a way made confession about it later:

“1 Corinthians 15:13-15
13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is worthless, and so is your faith. 15 In that case, we are also exposed as false witnesses about God.”

1 Corinthians 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is worthless, and so is your faith.

Yes, Paul is exposed that he made the vision and corrupted the Gospels to fit his Anti-Christ ideas (agenda). Right, please?
This is the basis of the Pauline-Christianity whatever their denomination.
I am an ordinary man in the street with no claim of any piety or any scholarship, correct/convince me if I am wrong, please.
I am an Ahmadiyya peaceful Muslim.

Regards

 

[leroy]

Let's start with your first unsubstantiated claim, that it is widely agreed among scholars that your five points are true. The linked article makes it very clear that there is NOT a consensus among scholars that this Jesus character even existed. Since you've provided no evidence for this initial claim, all of the claims that come afterward can be dismissed as unfounded.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...xist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/

sure I can support my claim.
most scolars acccept that the disciples had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen jesus

From considerations such as the research areas above, perhaps the single most
crucial development has emerged. With few exceptions, the fact that after Jesus'
death his followers had experiences that they thought were appearances of the
risen Jesus is arguably one of the two or three most recognized events from the
four Gospels, along with Jesus' central proclamation of the Kingdom of God
and his death by crucifixion. Few critical scholars reject the notion that, after
Jesus' death, the early Christians had real experiences of some sort

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIBBAC&usg=AOvVaw1ZEc_TqBcvPHDU5Hd51Afv

2 most scholars belive in the empty tomb

while far from being unanimously held by
critical scholars, it may surprise some that those who embrace the empty tomb
as a historical fact still
comprise a fairly strong majority

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIBBAC&usg=AOvVaw1ZEc_TqBcvPHDU5Hd51Afv
.

most scholars accept thst jesus died on the cross

Almost all scholars who have studied the subject conclude Jesus died by crucifixion
Crucifixion Historicity

as for the burial of jesus i cant find the exact number, but if 75% of scholars accept the empty tomb this means that tacitly they also accept the burial of jesus, so atleast 75% of scolars accept the burial of jesus.


....

 

[leroy]

Supernatural claims such as the Resurrection lack any objective evidence to justify any sort of proof. All you have is at best second or third person claims of testimony with no documents dated to the time of the life of Jesus Christ. No records outside the NT at the time of the life of Jesus Christ even reported his existence, nor the supernatural events of his life.

Many ancient persons on ancient history have supernatural events attributed to their lives, but no verifiable evidence to support the claims.

Proof has a very high bar that is not met by any claims of supernatural claims of events.




So far there has not been any objective verifiable evidence of ghosts, Big Foot, and Chinese dragons anywhere. There is an abundant anecdotal subjective claims, but not verifiable.

ok but in principle one can have verifiable evidence for supernatural claims.... agree?

or would you say that even in principle its impossible to have evidence for supernatural claims.?

 

[Subduction Zone]

sure I can support my claim.
most scolars acccept that the disciples had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen jesus
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIBBAC&usg=AOvVaw1ZEc_TqBcvPHDU5Hd51Afv

2 most scholars belive in the empty tomb

most scholars accept thst jesus died on the cross


as for the burial of jesus i cant find the exact number, but if 75% of scholars accept the empty tomb this means that tacitly they also accept the burial of jesus, so atleast 75% of scolars accept the burial of jesus.


....

Liberty "University"

 

[leroy]

He has flat out stated numerous times that he will support his claims right after you support your claims.
Now since we all know you are not going to support your claims...

again I am just asking which specific claim should o support, so that i can support it.

i will not respond to ambiguous demands such as "support everything"

 

[Subduction Zone]

again I am just asking which specific claim should o support, so that i can support it.

i will not respond to ambiguous demands such as "support everything"

 

[leroy]

Nope.

You don't get to demand evidence until you provide the evidence that you were asked for first.

ok then be specific

which specific claim dp you disagree with so that i can provide the evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

ok then be specific

which specific claim dp you disagree with so that i can provide the evidence?

I already told you once and so have others. All of your claims in the OP were made without evidence.

 

[leroy]

I already told you once and so have others. All of your claims in the OP were made without evidence.

i explained why i think the claims are true.

it is your turn to spot your specific points of disagreement
....

imagine this conversation between a Yec and an Old Earther (OE)

1 YEC: there is no evidence for an old earth

2 OE: well this link summarizes some of the arguments for an old earth

3 YEC: Sorry no evidence

4 OE: well why do you disagree with the arguments? whats wrong with the arguments provided in the article

5 YEC: the article was written by an old earther

6 OE:, yes so what? where is the author wrong according to you?

7 Yec: sorry no evidence

....

in this conversation who is being a troll and who is being reasonable and mature?..... you are acting like the YEC in this conversation

 

[shunyadragon]

ok but in principle one can have verifiable evidence for supernatural claims.... agree?

No.

or would you say that even in principle its impossible to have evidence for supernatural claims.?

At present yes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

i explained why i think the claims are true.

it is your turn to spot your specific points of disagreement
....

imagine this conversation between a Yec and an Old Earther (OE)

1 YEC: there is no evidence for an old earth

2 OE: well this link summarizes some of the arguments for an old earth

3 YEC: Sorry no evidence

4 OE: well why do you disagree with the arguments? whats wrong with the arguments provided in the article

5 YEC: the article was written by an old earther

6 OE:, yes so what? where is the author wrong according to you?

7 Yec: sorry no evidence

....

in this conversation who is being a troll and who is being reasonable and mature?..... you are acting like the YEC in this conversation

You keep forgetting that in this discussion you are the "YEC". Your one attempt to provide evidence failed. You did not vet your source. You did not even appear to realize how poor your source was.