What Real Evidence Exists for The Resurrection?

[godnotgod]

Do you mean brave enough, due to the fact that people of different beliefs will attack it and try to ridicule it (me).

No, I mean 'brave', in view of the fact that the claim being made lacks sufficient evidential support.

I never let narrow minded people worry me, I realise they have problems and issues.

Why do you refer to those who are simply asking for evidence to support your preposterous claim "narrow-minded"? Would'nt you say instead that those who make such claims in light of the sparse evidence, and yet continue to insist that they have a case, are the narrow-minded ones?

Does the resurrection have a function? Well I would say, we would first have to have sufficient evidence to establish whether resurrection is right or wrong. That would be a very good start. I mean evidence which isn't part of any belief pattern.

OK. So where is that evidence to establish the authenticity or fallacious nature of the resurrection?

However, this aside, Ressurrection does have a function in reality which cannot be denied. This function is it causes debates and friction between people of different beliefs, each trying to show and prove their belief is the one true vision pertaining to God. I would say the function is to try and teach people to be resonable when discussing different beliefs.

I see. So Jesus rose from the dead in order to deliberately cause debate and friction, while at the same time it teaches people to be reasonable? Is that correct?

 

[godnotgod]

We know the premise! It is the claim that documentary evidence is proof for supernatural events. But no document can ever be a full and final proof for the existence of a Supreme Being, to which those supposed mystical events are causally attributed. And it is as plain and as simple as that.

Maybe not so simple. There are deeper meanings to the myth that point to man's consciousness itself, but to get there, we first need to know more about why the myth is seen as truth.

Oh nonsense! I'm a sceptic because of the lack of proof, not because of any conceptions held in advance. If a thing can be proved or demonstrated then I'm bound to accept it.

When you do not choose sceptic or not-sceptic, you see something beyond just black and white.

We have the claim that a being was transported to another world after its dead body was returned to life. It isn’t a question of where and when those events took place...

That is not what I was saying. All I said is that, simply because those events allegedly occurred in time and place, it makes them historical.

...or a matter to be settled by testimony or scholarly analysis.

No, but the nature of the claim being made is that the event is a historical fact, and historical facts ARE settled by testimony and/or scholarly analysis. Therefore, we logically demand evidence.

If the claim were that of belief that a spirit had risen, demanding evidence would make no sense, since that belief or experience is not bound by time and place.

So what is an entity that supposedly transcends the natural world and has existed from eternity, if not supernatural?

"Transcend"* does not mean "separate from". I do not make the distinction between natural and supernatural. These are only concepts held within the dualistically oriented mind. There is only one reality.

Consider the following statement:

"The universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of time, space, and causation, and when It is seen on the lower side, It appears as the Universe. So not only is the Universe apparitional, it's the Absolute seen through time and space, and that allows us to understand why the physics of the Universe takes the form that we see."

The Equations of Maya

Some do indeed see the universe and the Absolute as natural and supernatural, as this and that, as creator and created, as two, when, in reality, the distinction is only conceptual due to a flaw within the mind. This flaw in vision is in need of correction, and that is what disciplines such as Zen attempts to do.
*****

*tran·scend Etymology: Middle English, from Latin transcendere to climb across, transcend, from trans- + scandere to climb —
transitive verb 1 a : to rise above or go beyond the limits of b : to triumph over the negative or restrictive aspects of : overcome c : to be prior to, beyond, and above (the universe or material existence).

In the process of transcendence, that which is transcended (the ordinary) becomes transformed. Actually, one's view of it becomes transformed, so that one now sees its connection to the universal.

 

[logician]

SECOND POSTING:

Does anyone here understand why that is so? Because, as far as I can see, the Resurrection performs no real function, as the Crucifixion does. It is the Crucifixion which is the executive agent that miraculously wipes away man's sin and guilt via of the shedding of divine blood, and exactly how that is accomplished is a topic for another thread.

?

Actually, one must believe that Jesus is lord to be saved, why something as barbarbic and ancient as a blood sacrifice would wipe away something as ill-defined as "sin" is beyond me. I don't believe in sin, or don't believe that it exists in a religious sense.

 

[godnotgod]

Actually, one must believe that Jesus is lord to be saved...

Specifically, this refers to
John 14:6

6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

One is instructed to accept Jesus as one's personal lord and savior.

But sin must be washed away via of the sacrifice of the Crucifixion:

Matthew 26

27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

...why something as barbarbic and ancient as a blood sacrifice would wipe away something as ill-defined as "sin" is beyond me.

I believe it has to do with the ancient superstitious belief that the blood carried the life force, and in some doctrines, the Sun God required it to rekindle its fires. As the Sun moved away each vernal equinox, it was believed it would die when it reached its furthest distance from earth, and so blood sacrifices of animals were made to nourish it so it would return and the cycle of life on earth (fertility) would continue. It is no accident that all of the god-men, including Jesus, are born on December 25, and that the Resurrection is a symbol of renewal. Ancient Jews practiced infanticide at one time, sacrificing their young to the pagan god Moloch, considered a Sun God. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that Moloch is another form of Yawheh. Eventually, the Judaic sacrifice took the form of the Passover Lamb, a spring lamb whose blood was smeared on doorposts to prevent the Angel of Death from killing their firstborn as he passed over their homes, hence the term 'Passover'. It is this Passover Lamb which was considered as a prefigurement of the coming Messiah, whose blood was shed "unto many for the remission of sin". Apparently, Jewish animal sacrifice was not powerful enough to prevent Yawheh from continuing to deliver his punishments to a wicked people, and so, in the end, the only acceptable sacrificial host in the eyes of God was God himself, in the flesh, spotless and pure. In the meantime, Yeshua comes along and was crucified, but the idea of his blood having salvific value was added later, as he was transformed into Jesus. Yeshua was a vegetarian and abhored animal, let alone, human sacrifice.

I don't believe in sin, or don't believe that it exists in a religious sense.

Literally, "sin" is originally a Greek archery term, hamartia, referring to a missed shot. It is an action, not a condition. It is interesting to note that, when a shot is missed, one gets another chance at it. In Buddhist thought, if one does not attain his enlightenment in this lifetime, he gets 'another shot' at it in the next incarnation. Judaism and Christianity have transformed hamartia into a frozen concept, an almost indelible mark of blame and guilt on the soul, which can only be erased via of some form of sacrifice or punishment.

 

[footprints]

No, I mean 'brave', in view of the fact that the claim being made lacks sufficient evidential support.

Oh I see, you mean brave as those who oppose the resurrection, in view of the fact that the claim being made lacks sufficient evidential support?

I am assuming you meant that for both sides of the debate.

Why do you refer to those who are simply asking for evidence to support your preposterous claim "narrow-minded"? Would'nt you say instead that those who make such claims in light of the sparse evidence, and yet continue to insist that they have a case, are the narrow-minded ones?

A person who can only see a one sided view of anything is narrow minded. Can you give me another way of saying it, subjective maybe, albeit I use that often too.

Wherever a person takes an unreasoned position pertaining to anything based on a lack of evidence, they are being subjective, narrow minded, faith driven, perception based, whatever you like to call it, irrespective of the position they take. Instant acceptance is equal in value to instant denial.

OK. So where is that evidence to establish the authenticity or fallacious nature of the resurrection?

I don't claim to have any.

I have seen suggested evidence which can go either way in this case scenario, but never any actual evidence which absolutely confirms it one way or another. A persons own belief pattern and the faith they put in this belief is all the evidence some people need whether they believe it or deny it.

So, where is that evidence to establish the authenticity or fallacious nature of the anti resurrection scenario?

I see. So Jesus rose from the dead in order to deliberately cause debate and friction, which leads to reason? Is that correct?

Isn't that what happens in reality? Or are you going to deny that too, even though you are posting in a thread which absolutely confirms it.

 

[footprints]

Well, no, there is nothing to admit to. When I say that it is an extraordinary claim, it is not a personal view, the fact of the matter. What makes it extraordinary is that there has never been such a claim made before in the history of man. That is not my personal view.

It is either a personal view or an ignorant (as in lacking in knowledge) view. I would suggest you look into Roman history, Julius Caesar was allegedly taken up by the Gods and Octavian (Augustus Caesar) promoted himself as the "Son of a living God." Aka, Jesus and God, and all in a similar time period, give or take a generation or two, in mankinds history.

Those who accept it "as normal" do not accept the actual event as such, but the doctrine attached to the event. In other words, they accept it because it is part of being obedient to their own brand of creator-God. Obedience is the key, not faith. One dare not dis-believe, on penalty of eternal punishment. Therefore, one better have "faith"....or else!

What actual evidence? Do you mean the circumstantial evidence we have which can go either way?

The concepts of crucifixion as redeeming sacrifice, resurrection from the dead, and ascension into a heaven are all miraculous events, the nature of which, essentially, are magic. If they all exhibit the "simplicity" you claim, then will you will have no difficulty in explaining exactly how they are executed.

If it is real, it is not miraculous. It would be a normal event for those that make it to this transition. Even explainable by science if we ever learned to understand it.

Now, had you been referring to the purity and simplicity of Yeshua's teachings, before St. Paul transformed them into the fantasmagorical and apocalyptic block-busting extravaganza that they have become, I would have no problem in agreeing with you.

Personally I am not interested in what Catholicism or any other religion says.

Dig?

Only when gardening, or other work involving a shovel or trench digger. For bigger jobs I bring in a font end loader et al to do the digging for me.

If the Christian truly understood the actual nature of what he was believing in, he would be dumbsruck.

Oh I see the Christian doesn't know the real truth, you do.

There is no premise upon which to establish any faith, either evidential or doctrinal.

I would agree with you, each carries the probability of being fundamentally flawed. Albeit, many people do carry a faith, those for and against the argument point.

Actually, I would be quite satisfied with ordinary evidence, such as a couple of paragraphs of written testimony, either first or second hand, from a handful of the alleged 500 eyewitnesses of St. Paul. The fact that no such written testimony exists out of over 500 eyewitnesses is further indication of the fallacious nature of the Resurrection as a real event....and that does not even include the Ascension!

We may or may not get this evidence, we are looking into the past and trying to piece it together from a future reference. Speculation is about all we have to go on. Speculation of course can go either way, depending on the faith of the person.

 

[godnotgod]

Oh I see, you mean brave as those who oppose the resurrection, in view of the fact that the claim being made lacks sufficient evidential support?

I am assuming you meant that for both sides of the debate.

Have you learned nothing in all this time?

Look. Get this straight, OK?

What you see as "those who oppose the resurrection" never made any claims to anything to begin with, so they are not under any obligation to come forth with evidence of any sort whatsoever. Christians are the ones who are advancing the claim that the Resurrection and Ascension are historical facts, and no one else.

Therefore, using Aristotelian Logic, it is incumbent upon those who advance the claim to defend it.

Instead, you are playing a childish game of tit for tat, and using the opposition's argument in a sophomoric manner.

If you cannot defend it, if you cannot come forth with the evidence required to support it, then surrender the claim of 'historical fact', and let's talk about the claim as a matter of faith instead.

Otherwise, we are still waiting after how many pages of dialogue (?), for you and yours to provide the evidence you claim exists. Stop beating around the bush, and put up, or xxxx up.

Real straight, see? Real simple.

Whatcha got? Lay it on the table for all to see. That's how we get to see reality.

Ball in YOUR court. Use it wisely.

 

[godnotgod]

A person who can only see a one sided view of anything is narrow minded.

Agreed. Such a person might treat his belief as if it were truth, would'nt he? On top of that, he might claim that his belief is the only true belief, would'nt he? On top of that, he might make preposterous claims which have little or no evidence to support them, and then make the additional preposterous claim that he is not required to be forthcoming with any evidence whatsoever. Then, to top it off, he will claim that faith in the claim is sufficient to validate the claim, and that those who challenge his position are narrow minded.

Would'nt he?

I don't claim to have any.

I have seen suggested evidence which can go either way in this case scenario, but never any actual evidence which absolutely confirms it one way or another. A persons own belief pattern and the faith they put in this belief is all the evidence some people need whether they believe it or deny it.

Sorry, but beliefs and faith do not qualify as evidence.

Isn't that what happens in reality? Or are you going to deny that too, even though you are posting in a thread which absolutely confirms it.

I asked you what function the Resurrection served. It was not initiated for the purpose of creating debate and friction, as you implied, but friction and debate are indeed the outcome, but not as a matter of intent. You have failed to tell us what function the Resurrection was intended to serve.

 

[godnotgod]

It is either a personal view or an ignorant (as in lacking in knowledge) view. I would suggest you look into Roman history, Julius Caesar was allegedly taken up by the Gods and Octavian (Augustus Caesar) promoted himself as the "Son of a living God." Aka, Jesus and God, and all in a similar time period, give or take a generation or two, in mankinds history.

Yes, and there were others, but the belief in Jesus's resurrection is the only one to have survived. Actually, they are all about the same idea, resurrection themes having been prominent during that time. Jesus's resurrection is just an outgrowth of the others. He is an amalgam. The point here is that the idea of resurrection of the physical body into a heavenly realm is an extraoridinary claim due to its miraculous nature.

What actual evidence? Do you mean the circumstantial evidence we have which can go either way?

I said 'actual event', meaning 'actual alleged event', not, 'actual evidence'. There is no actual evidence. Go back and re-read my post for clarification.

If it is real, it is not miraculous. It would be a normal event for those that make it to this transition. Even explainable by science if we ever learned to understand it.

I suppose that would hold true of cakes of limburger cheese that ascend into heaven as well, eh? You know. Normal, everyday, mundane, run of the mill limburger cheese ascensions. "Look, ma! There goes another one!"

Hey! It could happen! Don't be so narrow minded!

Personally I am not interested in what Catholicism or any other religion says.

Are you drunk? We are talking about the RESURRECTION, which is a CHRISTIAN BELIEF, and is a doctrine of the CHRISTIAN RELIGION!

Only when gardening, or other work involving a shovel or trench digger. For bigger jobs I bring in a font end loader et al to do the digging for me.

Good! Then you understand.

Oh I see the Christian doesn't know the real truth, you do.

If he knew the real truth, he would'nt be a Christian. Christianity is a compartmentalization of the truth, and therefore is not the truth. He may as well be attempting to capture the wind in a box. God is dead.

I would agree with you, each carries the probability of being fundamentally flawed. Albeit, many people do carry a faith, those for and against the argument point.

I think you are confusing faith with belief. You don't have faith in a doctrine. You believe in a doctrine. Faith is a condition, but does not advocate any particular view. You have faith by virtue of your just being here.

Belief clings.

Faith lets go.

We may or may not get this evidence, we are looking into the past and trying to piece it together from a future reference. Speculation is about all we have to go on. Speculation of course can go either way, depending on the faith of the person.

OK. So such evidence might be forthcoming, but to date, there really is no satisfactory evidence to support the claim of the Resurrection being a historical fact, as Christians claim it to be. Therefore, Christianity is forcing a square peg into a round hole to serve their belief system. They are guilty of having jumped the gun, making the claim without the proper evidence. So all they really have is a belief in a doctrine based upon previous doctrines, primarily the doctrine which states that one must not question the authority of the Christian God, questioning which amounts to blasphemy, punishable by eternal hellfire. It is this same demand for obedience that is the cause of the unquestioning belief in the Resurrection. It is a belief only, and has no real faith, because real faith liberates the mind beyond the mere act of obedience.

So it looks like the faith argument in favor of the Resurrection holds no water either.

Tell me. What is wrong with ordinary death and decomposition? Or do you lack faith in such things?

Do you fail to notice the miraculous nature of ordinary death, that you require sensational demonstrations of resurrections and ascensions of corpses to convince you?

Are you aware of the addictive nature of such drugs?

Oh, ye of little faith!

 

[godnotgod]

Originally Posted by godnotgod
Actually, I would be quite satisfied with ordinary evidence, such as a couple of paragraphs of written testimony, either first or second hand, from a handful of the alleged 500 eyewitnesses of St. Paul. The fact that no such written testimony exists out of over 500 eyewitnesses is further indication of the fallacious nature of the Resurrection as a real event....and that does not even include the Ascension!

We may or may not get this evidence, we are looking into the past and trying to piece it together from a future reference. Speculation is about all we have to go on. Speculation of course can go either way, depending on the faith of the person.

Actually, we do have more than mere speculation at our disposal. We have intuitive insight and the enlightened state to direct us. But this requires an awakening of a higher consciousness beyond that of the limited, speculative mind. It is this kind of insight which reveals flaws not apparent to ordinary thought.

Taken as a whole, the Resurrection takes on an appearance of having been concocted out of whole cloth.

 

[footprints]

Have you learned nothing in all this time?

In all this time talking to you, I most certainly I have. You have a lot of Faith in your beliefs.

Look. Get this straight, OK?

Dear me, this sounds serious. Stand over and bullying tactics. Should I run and hide in a corner.

What you see as "those who oppose the resurrection" never made any claims to anything to begin with, so they are not under any obligation to come forth with evidence of any sort whatsoever. Christians are the ones who are advancing the claim that the Resurrection and Ascension are historical facts, and no one else.

Is that what I see godnotgod? Well stand me upside down and kiss whatever you see, here I was thinking, what I was seeing was, people making a counter claim. That a resurrurection and ascension never took place. In which case, the same burden of proof lies with them.

So either stop making claims, or start to support your position. I already know it is a faith based position.

Therefore, using Aristotelian Logic, it is incumbent upon those who advance the claim to defend it.

Then either stop making, implying or suggesting claims, or begin to defend the claims you do make by supplying evidence to back up your claims.

Instead, you are playing a childish game of tit for tat, and using the opposition's argument in a sophomoric manner.

I suppose asking you for evidence to support your claims could be construed as tit for tat, after all it is what you request of others. Others would just call this a reasonable request, but each to their own belief.

If you cannot defend it, if you cannot come forth with the evidence required to support it, then surrender the claim of 'historical fact', and let's talk about the claim as a matter of faith instead.

As I make no claim one way or the other, I have no position to defend. You on the other hand claim the resurrection and ascension never took place, so I suggest you start supporting this claim with credible evidence. If you cannot come forth with the evidence required to support it, then surrender the claim of "historical fact," and let's talk about the claim as a matter of faith instead. You do have a lot of faith in your belief.

Otherwise, we are still waiting after how many pages of dialogue (?), for you and yours to provide the evidence you claim exists. Stop beating around the bush, and put up, or xxxx up.

Oh I know, godnotgod and I have been waiting just as many pages of dialogue for you and yours to provide the evidence you claim exists. However I already know such evidence doesn't exist, so you are beating about the bush. That your answer is supplied to you by your "Faith of Belief." Blind Faith too, seeing as how there is not tangible evidence to support your view.

Real straight, see? Real simple.

It was thank you, albeit I never believed it was difficult.

 

[footprints]

Agreed. Such a person might treat his belief as if it were truth, would'nt he? On top of that, he might claim that his belief is the only true belief, would'nt he? On top of that, he might make preposterous claims which have little or no evidence to support them, and then make the additional preposterous claim that he is not required to be forthcoming with any evidence whatsoever. Then, to top it off, he will claim that faith in the claim is sufficient to validate the claim, and that those who challenge his position are narrow minded.

Would'nt he?

Oh agreed godnotgod, whole heartedly agreed. So I hope in future you will refrain from being so?

That either A) you will not make unsupported claims, or, B) back up the claims you make with tangible evidence to support your claims.

Sorry, but beliefs and faith do not qualify as evidence.

Again I agree, looks like we are on a roll. So I hope you will now refrain from using your belief and faith as evidence. Like you say, they just don't qualify as evidence.

I asked you what function the Resurrection served. It was not initiated for the purpose of creating debate and friction, as you implied, but friction and debate are indeed the outcome, but not as a matter of intent. You have failed to tell us what function the Resurrection was intended to serve.

Sorry, but that is the end purpose of the resurrection at this point in time. All that any credible evidence can support. Of course you can have your faith support any belief you choose, that choice is yours.

 

[footprints]

Yes, and there were others, but the belief in Jesus's resurrection is the only one to have survived. Actually, they are all about the same idea, resurrection themes having been prominent during that time. Jesus's resurrection is just an outgrowth of the others. He is an amalgam. The point here is that the idea of resurrection of the physical body into a heavenly realm is an extraoridinary claim due to its miraculous nature.

Yes there were other claims, glad you now agree. So they were personal claims before and not fact as you tried to pass it off as. Don't you feel better now knowing you were wrong and have learned something?

I said 'actual event', meaning 'actual alleged event', not, 'actual evidence'. There is no actual evidence. Go back and re-read my post for clarification.

I know what you said, and I know what I said, so either provide some evidence to support your outlandish statements, or admit again it was just your personal belief.

I suppose that would hold true of cakes of limburger cheese that ascend into heaven as well, eh? You know. Normal, everyday, mundane, run of the mill limburger cheese ascensions. "Look, ma! There goes another one!"

Look you can believe in cakes of limburger cheese ascending to heaven if you want to. I do not want to take your belief off you. I wasn't having a shot at your belief.

Hey! It could happen! Don't be so narrow minded!

Again I can only say, I do not want to take your belief from you. If you believe in cakes of limburger cheese ascending to heaven, this is your right to do so, don't let anybody take that away from you.

Are you drunk? We are talking about the RESURRECTION, which is a CHRISTIAN BELIEF, and is a doctrine of the CHRISTIAN RELIGION!

It is doctrine of the bible, which christian sects use. Jesus per se, wasn't a christian according to this doctrine, Jesus was a Jew. A christian didn't ascend to heaven, a jew did.

If he knew the real truth, he would'nt be a Christian. Christianity is a compartmentalization of the truth, and therefore is not the truth. He may as well be attempting to capture the wind in a box. God is dead.

And your evidence to support this unreasoned statement? LOL yes it was faith based.

I think you are confusing faith with belief. You don't have faith in a doctrine. You believe in a doctrine. Faith is a condition, but does not advocate any particular view. You have faith by virtue of your just being here.

Belief clings.

Faith lets go.

LOL no I am not confusing anything.

OK. So such evidence might be forthcoming, but to date, there really is no satisfactory evidence to support the claim of the Resurrection being a historical fact, as Christians claim it to be. Therefore, Christianity is forcing a square peg into a round hole to serve their belief system. They are guilty of having jumped the gun, making the claim without the proper evidence. So all they really have is a belief in a doctrine based upon previous doctrines, primarily the doctrine which states that one must not question the authority of the Christian God, questioning which amounts to blasphemy, punishable by eternal hellfire. It is this same demand for obedience that is the cause of the unquestioning belief in the Resurrection. It is a belief only, and has no real faith, because real faith liberates the mind beyond the mere act of obedience.

So you claim the resurrection isn't a historical fact. Just the same as those you condemn.

So it looks like the faith argument in favor of the Resurrection holds no water either.

No faith based argument holds validity when face to face with an opposing faith based argument.

Lucky for me, I have no faith in either position of the resurrection, I will wait till credible evidence presents itself. Sorry I cannot have the same faith as you in your belief.

Tell me. What is wrong with ordinary death and decomposition? Or do you lack faith in such things?

I don't see anything wrong with that position, so tell me, what is wrong with it?

Do you fail to notice the miraculous nature of ordinary death, that you require sensational demonstrations of resurrections and ascensions of corpses to convince you?

Not really, so why do you need it the other way round, to support your view?

Are you aware of the addictive nature of such drugs?

Dear me, don't tell me drugs are addictive. Should I sue my doctor for prescribing me drugs from time to time?

Oh, ye of little faith!

Yes I know, but having no faith is part and parcel of being an agnostic. Sorry I cannot have more faith in your beliefs, but it just isn't in me.

 

[godnotgod]

Unanswered question for Christians remains:

Looking at the Resurrection purely as a matter of faith, disregarding any documentary evidence, can you then tell us what function the Resurrection serves? Does it actually do something to a Christian's soul, as the Crucifixion claims to do, or is it just an ornament, a trophy, to embellish the Christian belief system, with which the Christian can use to point out the fact that, unlike all those other religions whose leader rots in their graves, Jesus's grave was empty, because he rose and ascended into Heaven, and whichis what sets Christianity apart as the one and only True Faith?

So far, Christians have failed to come up with much in terms of evidence. Here is their last opportunity to show and tell. If nothing is forthcoming, we shall have to assume that the Resurrection is a fantasy, until demonstrated, either via of evidence or faith, that it is authentic.

 

[godnotgod]

...what I was seeing was, people making a counter claim. That a resurrection and ascension never took place. In which case, the same burden of proof lies with them.

No, it does not, because, since the Resurrection, like the Invisible Pink Unicorn, has no real evidence to support it. Therefore, for all practical purposes, it never happened, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn is a complete fabrication.

So either stop making claims, or start to support your position. I already know it is a faith based position.

No, it is not. Christianity claims it is a historical fact, and that places it squarely into the realm of logic and reason, both of which demand evidence to support such alleged facts. Sorry.

Then either stop making, implying or suggesting claims, or begin to defend the claims you do make by supplying evidence to back up your claims.

My evidence is that there is no evidence to demonstrate that the Resurrection is a fact. That is solid evidence.

I suppose asking you for evidence to support your claims could be construed as tit for tat, after all it is what you request of others. Others would just call this a reasonable request, but each to their own belief.

I did not advance the first claim, that the Resurrection is a fact. This thread is not about ME supplying evidence to prove the Resurrection fallacious, but for Christians to provide evidence to prove their initial claim. Your logic is completely faulty, since I did not first advance the claim that Jesus did not resurrect. That would be ridiculous. My demand for evidence is due to the fact that the Christian is making a preposterous claim without having anything to back it up. That's all. The burden of proof is not on me, but on the Christian. If he is making the claim, and then cannot back it up, I can only assume that the Resurrection is fallacious, since to be a fact we need evidence. That is how facts are determined.

As I make no claim one way or the other, I have no position to defend. You on the other hand claim the resurrection and ascension never took place, so I suggest you start supporting this claim with credible evidence. If you cannot come forth with the evidence required to support it, then surrender the claim of "historical fact," and let's talk about the claim as a matter of faith instead. You do have a lot of faith in your belief.

I already supplied the evidence for my claim, and that is that there is no evidence from the Christian camp. My evidence is clear and unmistakable.

Oh I know, godnotgod and I have been waiting just as many pages of dialogue for you and yours to provide the evidence you claim exists. However I already know such evidence doesn't exist, so you are beating about the bush. That your answer is supplied to you by your "Faith of Belief." Blind Faith too, seeing as how there is not tangible evidence to support your view.

The Resurrection is a lie.

It was thank you, albeit I never believed it was difficult.

Your entire argument is trashed, due to faulty logic.

Once again, the burden of proof lies with those who present the claim in the first place.

Don't be coy by cleverly trying to transfer the burden to the non-Christian. We are under no obligation to prove anything. If the Christian cannot come forth with support for his preposterous claim, he needs to put up or xxxx up. Really. If he retreats into his phony faith based position, he can go into the closet and blow his brains out with his phantoms, if he wishes to do so. Just don't try to foist his phantom on me. I have already crushed the cave of phantoms. :yes:

 

[godnotgod]

Sorry, but that is the end purpose of the resurrection at this point in time. All that any credible evidence can support. Of course you can have your faith support any belief you choose, that choice is yours.

You have the cart ahead of the horse. No, the purpose of the resurrection is NOT debate and friction; it is the unintentional OUTCOME. Because it is unintentional, it cannot be its purpose. My question has to do with the function the Resurrection serves to man's soul, and no one has answered that yet. Therefore, the support for the Resurrection fails on two counts: those of factual evidence and of faith. What else is left?


On top of that, God must be an idiot, knowing that staging a silly thing like the Resurrection/Ascension, which few if any actually witnessed, would cause such fallout. God, in effect, is creating divisiveness and discord amongst man. We are clearly looking at man's mind here, one which concocted the ridiculous idea of the Resurrection out of whole cloth. That much is obvious to anyone who has eyes in his head. No intelligent God would do such a thing.

Besides, if you look very closely, you can see the wires attached to Jesus's body as he ascends into the sky.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes there were other claims, glad you now agree. So they were personal claims before and not fact as you tried to pass it off as. Don't you feel better now knowing you were wrong and have learned something?

You got it wrong. Essentially, all those beliefs in resurrection are actually one belief, spread out amongst several god-men, Jesus being the one with which the one belief came down to us.

I know what you said, and I know what I said, so either provide some evidence to support your outlandish statements, or admit again it was just your personal belief.

It is not a belief, because there is no doctrine attached to what I am saying. The Resurrection never happened not because of any belief, but because there is no evidence that it DID happen. It is purely a concoction of those who want to entertain such fantasies. The real question is why they choose to do so.

Look you can believe in cakes of limburger cheese ascending to heaven if you want to. I do not want to take your belief off you. I wasn't having a shot at your belief.

I have smelled them ascending into heaven with my own eyes.:angel2:

Again I can only say, I do not want to take your belief from you. If you believe in cakes of limburger cheese ascending to heaven, this is your right to do so, don't let anybody take that away from you.

Some even ascend into heaven sandwiched between Triscuits.:yes:

It is doctrine of the bible, which christian sects use. Jesus per se, wasn't a christian according to this doctrine, Jesus was a Jew. A christian didn't ascend to heaven, a jew did.

Ha..ha...ha..Just wait til the Palestinians get there and we continue the bloodshed in heaven between the children of light and the children of darkness. Jews in heaven my asss!

And your evidence to support this unreasoned statement? LOL yes it was faith based.

I just gave it to you. Christianity claims it is the one true faith, and that its God is the true God. That is compartmentalizing the truth, therefore it is not the truth. Can anyone claim the sun's rays as their own, or that the sun favors them for some strange reason? Some will try.

LOL no I am not confusing anything.

Yes you are. I explained it already.

So you claim the resurrection isn't a historical fact. Just the same as those you condemn.

I never condemned them. I just said they are delusional. They have no evidence; I do.

No faith based argument holds validity when face to face with an opposing faith based argument.

Mine is not a faith based argument, but one of direct insight into the nature of the Christian belief system, based upon what THEY say.

Lucky for me, I have no faith in either position of the resurrection, I will wait till credible evidence presents itself. Sorry I cannot have the same faith as you in your belief.

I have no such belief. You will be waiting for quite a long while.

I was unaware of your agnostic position. It sounded initially as if you were supporting the belief in the Resurrection.

Where you and I differ, however, is that you are taking a middle ground, neither believing nor not-believing. I have made up my mind about the matter.

There remains no question in my mind that the Resurrection is a complete fabrication. I make that statement not as a matter of faith, but as a matter of seeing that it is a substantial, delusional idea to begin with.

Having said that, I suspect that Yeshua (there is no such person as Jesus) survived the Crucifixion and some of his followers DID see him afterwards. The Ascension is pure fantasy. The story is picked up from this point on by the Buddhist monastery in Kashimir, which has textual evidence to support that he was there.

 

[cottage]

Maybe not so simple. There are deeper meanings to the myth that point to man's consciousness itself, but to get there, we first need to know more about why the myth is seen as truth.

You’re wandering off track again. The matter in question (which you raised) was one of evidence and premises, not psychological or mystical explanations to explain why some want to believe a thing to be true.

When you do not choose sceptic or not-sceptic, you see something beyond just black and white.

That is a completely meaningless statement. One doesn’t choose to be a sceptic. And as I’ve already explained if a thing is self-evident or can be proved beyond doubt then I’m bound to accept it.

That is not what I was saying. All I said is that, simply because those events allegedly occurred in time and place, it makes them historical.

But so what?

No, but the nature of the claim being made is that the event is a historical fact, and historical facts ARE settled by testimony and/or scholarly analysis. Therefore, we logically demand evidence.

If the claim were that of belief that a spirit had risen, demanding evidence would make no sense, since that belief or experience is not bound by time and place. [/quote]

Resurrection is by definition the raising of the dead by God, it is not merely the appearance of a dead person. The claimants themselves describe the event as a miracle, and a ‘miracle’ is an act of God in theistic terms. Events in history may be true or false. For example, the legend of Robin Hood, which supposedly occurred in history, may be false but it refers to possible experience. But the Bible states that the body raised will no longer be flesh and blood but a glorified body, ‘heavenly and immortal’ (1Co 15:35 58). A ‘heavenly body’ is certainly not something to be found in possible experience, and in order to accept the Resurrection you have to accept that a dead body can return to life after three days (and then disappear again). Nobody, nobody who isn’t a believer, would accept that such an event must be accepted simply because documents describe such an event. In 1999 Archbishop Carey himself said there is enough historical evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus lived, but that there is not the same amount of evidence to say that he was resurrected.

"Transcend"* does not mean "separate from". I do not make the distinction between natural and supernatural. These are only concepts held within the dualistically oriented mind. There is only one reality.

Yes, there is only one reality, and the deceased do not spring to life after three days! And transcend means outside or beyond experience.

Consider the following statement:

"The universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of time, space, and causation, and when It is seen on the lower side, It appears as the Universe. So not only is the Universe apparitional, it's the Absolute seen through time and space, and that allows us to understand why the physics of the Universe takes the form that we see."

Was I supposed to be impressed by such convoluted gobbledegook?
All it wants to say is that the universe is the sum total of our empirical understanding.

 

[sandandfoam]

What ab out Spongs argument that belief in literal resurrection was not part of early Christianity?

 

[godnotgod]

Was I supposed to be impressed by such convoluted gobbledegook?

No. Were you?

All it wants to say is that the universe is the sum total of our empirical understanding.

No, it does not.