Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[Brian2]

Now I'm just going to ask you how you have determined that that is the case.

Through faith in what the Bible tells me about God.

ps: god changes throughout the bible. From OT sadistic monster to NT hippy who condemns thought crimes.

God has not changed. I think your ideas about the OT and NT God are wrong.

Yes.
So?

Well you said that existence is a temporal thing.

I'm saying that "to exist" and "to live" has temporal implications.
Did the person that told you that time has origins in the BB that something existed "before" time existed?
No? Then what are you objecting to?

If someone says that time began with the BB and that the universe has always existed, I presume that they are saying that the universe did not beging. But they are not saying that.

We don't know how the universe originated.

I know. But the implications are that it "somehow" popped into existence at the BB.

Considering we are temporal beings whose daily life deals with sub-light (and even sub-sound) speeds and relativily low gravitational forces...
Environments of extreme gravity, extreme speeds or T = 0 are bound to be experienced as "strange" to us.

Like Lawrence Krauss so infamously said once:

Our brains evolved to avoid being eaten by lions. Not to understand quantum mechanics.

Another nice way to illustrate this was once shared by Brian Green. I loved what he said. Paraphrasing:

Quantum physics is weird. Primarily because it is outside of our scope of experience. I would love it if quantum physics would come intuitively to us, similar to newtonian physics. I have this tennis ball here... Suppose I throw it to you while saying "catch!". Many a times, you will be able to catch it. With one hand even. In a split second. Consider the process your brain has to go through to catch that ball... You need to instantly, literally in a split second, figure out where you are going to need to place your hand and when to close it in order to catch it. How do you do this? You figure it out by how it threw it. The force with which I threw it. The path it takes, the curve it takes,... You instantly figure it out. We can calculate its trajectory with newtonian physics equations as well. But your brain doesn't need to go to that length at all. You'll still catch it while knowing absolutely NOTHING about newtonian physics or its equations.

Now.... just imagine the length we have to go, the budget we need to spend on machinery, the insane math we have to deal with, to "catch" a neutrino.
Yes, I would love to be able to just catch it intuitively... but sadly, it doesn't work that way. We need to build billion dollar machines to be able to do that.



This little anecdote just to illustrate: why would you expect anything but an explanation that will feel "strange" to us, for the origins of the universe?

I don't expect anything but strange explanations.

Popular with whom?

Physicists. It's called the B theory of time.

 

[Brian2]

Nobody does, since nobody has ever observed a spirit or studied one, let alone that they can distinguish "spirits" from things that don't exist.
So everybody who tries talking about that subject, is by definition talking out of his / her behind.

Sometimes people are talking from personal experiences.
Sometimes people are talking from what they believe has been revealed to them from someone who knows, God.

I'm not aware of any science dealing with "spirits".

I'm not aware of that either, but I still see scientists making fun of the idea of spirits and God when they don't know.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why do you think any other explanation would be superior to the resurrection? What gives it such low plausibility?

The problem is that all the argument is based on internal sources of the NT, which is not sufficient for any more than alow plausibility. It is based on subjective Theological 'belief; and no actual records outside the NT at the time the resurrection is supposed to take place. Yes, most, not virtually all, New Testament scholars 'believe' in the resurrection, because they are Christians that believe.

Supernatural events have a very very low probability of being true. This is true of the supernatural events in the life of other famous historical figures like Buddha.

As for the appearances, our best source afaik is Paul himself with the Gospels corroborating him but we can ignore them if you wish. Paul in his letter to the Corinthian Church quotes what the vast majority believe to be a very early tradition and this tradition mentions the appearances:

This would not be evidence and they believed what Paul told them.

There is a virtually unanimous consensus among scholars that this is a very early tradition and that's one of the reasons why it's taken as a historical fact that the disciples had experiences which they interpreted in such a way.

No, only Christian scholars that believe, and again only based on subjective internal NT evidence, The Gospels were compiled, edited and redacted long after the life of Jesus Christ, we have no records of the life of Jesus Christ during his life.

These moldy oldy arguments are nothing new. Reruns do not improve the odds.

 

[Colt]

paarsurrey said:
" Urantia Book "

• #561

What is this "Urantia Book" ,is it written by Jesus??
Anybody, please

And on whom this revelation was revealed and who are these y-"our" unseen friends, please identify them, right???

Regards

They are the same kind of celestial beings that appeared to Abraham at the Oaks of Mamre. A group of people in Chicago received the revelation between 1908-1934, published in 1955

 

[shunyadragon]

Sometimes people are talking from personal experiences.
Sometimes people are talking from what they believe has been revealed to them from someone who knows, God.

I doubt that anyone 'knows' God since there are far too many contradictory claims of those who claim to 'know' God or maybe Gods.

I'm not aware of that either, but I still see scientists making fun of the idea of spirits and God when they don't know.

Yes some scientists and non-scientists do just that. So what!?!?!?!?

 

[shunyadragon]

They are the same kind of celestial beings that appeared to Abraham at the Oaks of Mamre. A group of people in Chicago received the revelation between 1908-1934, published in 1955

It is a bogus mixed bag recent compilation of nothing of substance. In the same genre as a 'Course of Miracles.'

 

[Colt]

It is a bogus mixed bag recent compilation of nothing of substance. In the same genre as a 'Course of Miracles.'

Thats your opinion out of ignorance.

He says "nothing of substance"

1. 81. Development of Modern Civilization - Archangel
2. 82. The Evolution of Marriage - Chief of Seraphim
3. 83. The Marriage Institution - Chief of Seraphim
4. 84. Marriage and Family Life - Chief of Seraphim
5. 85. The Origins of Worship - Brilliant Evening Star
6. 86. Early Evolution of Religion - Brilliant Evening Star
7. 87. The Ghost Cults - Brilliant Evening Star
8. 88. Fetishes, Charms, and Magic - Brilliant Evening Star
9. 89. Sin, Sacrifice, and Atonement - Brilliant Evening Star
10. 90. Shamanism — Medicine Men and Priests - Melchizedek
11. 91. The Evolution of Prayer - Chief of Midwayers
12. 92. The Later Evolution of Religion - Melchizedek
13. 93. Machiventa Melchizedek - Melchizedek
14. 94. The Melchizedek Teachings in the Orient - Melchizedek
15. 95. The Melchizedek Teachings in the Levant - Melchizedek
16. 96. Yahweh — God of the Hebrews - Melchizedek
17. 97. Evolution of the God Concept Among the Hebrews - Melchizedek
18. 98. The Melchizedek Teachings in the Occident - Melchizedek
19. 99. The Social Problems of Religion - Melchizedek
20. 100. Religion in Human Experience - Melchizedek
21. 101. The Real Nature of Religion - Melchizedek
22. 102. The Foundations of Religious Faith - Melchizedek
23. 103. The Reality of Religious Experience - Melchizedek
24. 104. Growth of the Trinity Concept - Melchizedek
25. 105. Deity and Reality - Melchizedek
26. 106. Universe Levels of Reality - Melchizedek
27. 107. Origin and Nature of Thought Adjusters - Solitary Messenger
28. 108. Mission and Ministry of Thought Adjusters - Solitary Messenger
29. 109. Relation of Adjusters to Universe Creatures - Solitary Messenger
30. 110. Relation of Adjusters to Individual Mortals - Solitary Messenger
31. 111. The Adjuster and the Soul - Solitary Messenger
32. 112. Personality Survival - Solitary Messenger
33. 113. Seraphic Guardians of Destiny - Chief of Seraphim
34. 114. Seraphic Planetary Government - Chief of Seraphim
35. 115. The Supreme Being - Mighty Messenger
36. 116. The Almighty Supreme - Mighty Messenger
37. 117. God the Supreme - Mighty Messenger
38. 118. Supreme and Ultimate — Time and Space - Mighty Messenger
39. 119. The Bestowals of Christ Michael - Chief of Evening Stars

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What description of something that does not exist are you talking about?

I'm guessing "something that doesn't exist in space and time".

Let's call that something X.
X does not exist in time.
X does not take up any amount of space.
Note also that this means that X has no detectable manifestation whatsoever.

How is X different from something that doesn't exist?

What is the difference between a non-existent dragon and a dragon that does not exist in time, takes up no space and has no detectable manifestation at all?

TagliatelliMonster said: Also, you seem unaware that "to exist" and "to live" are BOTH temporal phenomenon. (post 529)
Subduction Zone said: Do you realize that the most popular version of the Big Bang Theory has time beginning with the Big Bang? That means that the universe has always existed. (post 519)

Yes. These statements are not in contradiction with eachother.

If these 2 statements agree that would mean that you are using "has always existed" to mean, "has always existed since there was time".

Obviously.
So we are in the universe. It's 13.7 billion years old. The start of the universe = the start of time.
Always = a period of time. 'All of time' to be exact.

Go back into the past. Chose any point in time. Any point at all.
Did the universe exist at that point? The answer is yes.

Hence, the universe has always exist.
Or otherwise put: the universe has existed for all of time.
Whenever time was flowing, there was a universe.
Choose any point in time and there is a universe.

Hence, the univese has always existed.

This is a deceptive statement

It is not. Seems you don't realize that "always" means "for all of time".

as "has always existed" implies that the universe did not come into existence

It does not.
It means that the universe existed for all of time.
Whenever time existed, so did the universe.

Sure, your temporal brain that evolved to avoid being eaten by lions instead of understanding quantum mechanics etc, can't wrap itself around the notion of what it means to be at T = 0 or in the center of a black hole... but that doesn't change the logical facts / consequences of the nature of the space-time continuum.

There is no "before" the universe, because time did not exist and neither did the universe.
There is no "before" time like there is no "north" of the north pole.

It's weird and our brains have trouble processing it. But it is what it is.

, but has always been there in some form even when there was no time.

No. Again: "always" means "all of time".
Not "no time".

Why would I, a creationist, want to say that there was no beginning.

There was a beginning. At T = 0. The beginning of time.
And "always" = "for all of TIME"

No beginning is something that science once said and then the Hubble Telescope helped to develop the BB idea, a beginning. The steady state theory was popular in the mid 20th century.

Sure.
But the issue here is the implications of BB and "time" itself being an inherent part of the universe itself.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Through faith in what the Bible tells me about God.

Right. So just a religious faith based assertion.
What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

God has not changed. I think your ideas about the OT and NT God are wrong.

These are not my ideas. It's what the bible says. Did you read it?

Well you said that existence is a temporal thing.

Indeed.
Can you point me to a moment in time when the universe did not exist?
No?
Then how is it wrong to say that the universe has always existed?

If someone says that time began with the BB and that the universe has always existed, I presume that they are saying that the universe did not beging. But they are not saying that.

That's where you are wrong.
Time began when the universe began.
The universe has existed for 13.7 billion years.
It began at T = 0.
It has existed for all of time. ie: always.

I know. But the implications are that it "somehow" popped into existence at the BB.

I don't know about "popped". The origins are unknown.
But indeed, the space-time continuum began at T = 0, 13.7 billion years ago.

I don't expect anything but strange explanations.

Ok. It just seemed that you calling it "strange" was part of the motivation for questioning what science has to say about it.

Physicists. It's called the B theory of time.

What you described there was not at all a proper summary of B theory of time, which rather ties into special relativity and its implications.

 

[SkepticThinker]

A problem we have is that science does not really know what it is talking about when it comes to spirit and timelessness and spacelessness. But some scientists seem to want us to believe they know what they are talking about.

The problem is that you didn't address the question posed to you and instead answered something else.

 

[shunyadragon]

Thats your opinion out of ignorance.

He says "nothing of substance"

1. 81. Development of Modern Civilization - Archangel
2. 82. The Evolution of Marriage - Chief of Seraphim
3. 83. The Marriage Institution - Chief of Seraphim
4. 84. Marriage and Family Life - Chief of Seraphim
5. 85. The Origins of Worship - Brilliant Evening Star
6. 86. Early Evolution of Religion - Brilliant Evening Star
7. 87. The Ghost Cults - Brilliant Evening Star
8. 88. Fetishes, Charms, and Magic - Brilliant Evening Star
9. 89. Sin, Sacrifice, and Atonement - Brilliant Evening Star
10. 90. Shamanism — Medicine Men and Priests - Melchizedek
11. 91. The Evolution of Prayer - Chief of Midwayers
12. 92. The Later Evolution of Religion - Melchizedek
13. 93. Machiventa Melchizedek - Melchizedek
14. 94. The Melchizedek Teachings in the Orient - Melchizedek
15. 95. The Melchizedek Teachings in the Levant - Melchizedek
16. 96. Yahweh — God of the Hebrews - Melchizedek
17. 97. Evolution of the God Concept Among the Hebrews - Melchizedek
18. 98. The Melchizedek Teachings in the Occident - Melchizedek
19. 99. The Social Problems of Religion - Melchizedek
20. 100. Religion in Human Experience - Melchizedek
21. 101. The Real Nature of Religion - Melchizedek
22. 102. The Foundations of Religious Faith - Melchizedek
23. 103. The Reality of Religious Experience - Melchizedek
24. 104. Growth of the Trinity Concept - Melchizedek
25. 105. Deity and Reality - Melchizedek
26. 106. Universe Levels of Reality - Melchizedek
27. 107. Origin and Nature of Thought Adjusters - Solitary Messenger
28. 108. Mission and Ministry of Thought Adjusters - Solitary Messenger
29. 109. Relation of Adjusters to Universe Creatures - Solitary Messenger
30. 110. Relation of Adjusters to Individual Mortals - Solitary Messenger
31. 111. The Adjuster and the Soul - Solitary Messenger
32. 112. Personality Survival - Solitary Messenger
33. 113. Seraphic Guardians of Destiny - Chief of Seraphim
34. 114. Seraphic Planetary Government - Chief of Seraphim
35. 115. The Supreme Being - Mighty Messenger
36. 116. The Almighty Supreme - Mighty Messenger
37. 117. God the Supreme - Mighty Messenger
38. 118. Supreme and Ultimate — Time and Space - Mighty Messenger
39. 119. The Bestowals of Christ Michael - Chief of Evening Stars

Voluminous writing does not justify this book based on subjective claims of whatever. I have addressed the severe problems of the reliability of this book in a previous thread.

This book is considered in academics as a religious narrative like the Bible, but this is set in contemporary history and not true or false.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sometimes people are talking from personal experiences.

Which I don't care for when it comes to objective truth statements concerning external and commonly observed reality.

Sometimes people are talking from what they believe has been revealed to them from someone who knows, God.

Which is indistinguishable from sheer fantasy.
Do you believe everything people tell you from that perspective?
Clearly you don't, since you are not a muslim, not a hindu, not a scientologist...
You likely also don't believe in alien abduction, bigfoot, loch ness, or people claiming to "remember" their past lives on Atlantis like Edgar Cacy or whatever his name was.

So don't expect me to do otherwise when it comes to your particular faith-based "personal experience" claims.

I'm not aware of that either

Then you should not say what you said.

, but I still see scientists making fun of the idea of spirits and God when they don't know.

Newsflash: not every word a person, who happens to be a scientist, utters, is part of his/her scientific work.

Science is what you find in the papers produced through their research.


So what you do there, seems to me to be no more or less then trying to paint science in a bad light by simply misrepresenting it.
Science doesn't deal with "spirits" or other supernatural shenannigans because science only concerns itself with things that are actually demonstrably real, which have detectable manifestation.

 

[shunyadragon]

The problem with the 'supernatural' claims of ALL ancient religions is that they are not considered true or false by academic historians. The Bible as well as the writings of other ancient religions like Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam are considered narratives of religious beliefs set in history and not historically factual. They may refer to historical events and persons, bit not considered history texts in and of themselves. When historians refer and consider religious beliefs and writings it is not whether they are true nor false.

 

[Colt]

When believers whether in academics, apologetics


Voluminous writing does not justify this book based on subjective claims of whatever. I have addressed the severe problems of the reliability of this book in a previous thread.

You haven't read the UB and you have already been discredited for claiming "nothing of substance". Your opinions about reliability are that of an adherent to the controversial Baháʼí Faith. (if i recall that correctly). Are you Baháʼí ?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The Bible tells me that God does not change and so can just be without needing time for changes to happen in Him.

Is your god conscious? If so, it exists and changes in time as its mental states evolve. Does it create? If so, it exists and acts in time.

A problem we have is that science does not really know what it is talking about when it comes to spirit and timelessness and spacelessness.

I think it's the people making unfalsifiable claims about these things that don't know what they're talking about. Why? Because scientists DO know what they're talking about. They've seen and tested what they're talking about, and the proof is in the pudding - the spectacular success science has had predicting nature and transforming the human condition.

What the faithful are talking about with spirits has none of that - no observation, no testing ideas, and no useful ideas - just unfalsifiable claims that can't be used to do anything - literally knowing nothing about what they are talking about because nothing can be known.

What description of something that does not exist are you talking about?

I asked you to delineate the differences between things that do exist like wolves and those that don't like werewolves, but you made no comment. If you want to learn, you need to pay attention to what is written to you and address all salient points and answer all non-rhetorical questions. You see the result of doing less.

God has not changed. I think your ideas about the OT and NT God are wrong.

The description of the Christian deity reveals a god that has evolved between the Testaments. That's a fact, but inapparent to one wearing a faith-based confirmation bias set to "It is decided a priori that God has not changed therefore no evidence of change shall pass this filter." Once you choose to go down that path of evaluating evidence after forming belief without it, the natural function of your mind has been co-opted to stop looking at the world to decide what is true about it and act rationally to evidence to specious rationalization.

 

[leroy]

Those are all questions for people who claim the supernatural exists.
Don't ask me to do your homework

So you have no idea what evidence means, and no idea what supernatural means………… but you still have the intellectual dishonesty of claiming that there is no evidence for the supernatural?



Under what basis do you affirm that there is no evidence for the supernatural y you don’t even know the definitions of this terms?.

 

[leroy]

We are in the real world. So go for it.


And they have been dealt with and shown how they are cesspools of logical fallacies.

well then deal with the OP and spot the logical fallacies.............

 

[leroy]

The OP has been dealt with by pointing out how it's fallacious.
That's not "semantics". That's showing the "argument" doesn't work due to it being invalid logically.

The job is done at that point.

he OP has been dealt with by pointing out how it's fallacious.

well i missed the post where you did that

 

[leroy]

Seeing loved ones after death is one of the most common types of hallucinations
The phenomenology and impact of hallucinations concerning the deceased | BJPsych Open | Cambridge Core

So there is little need to invoke anything to explain James experiences, even if they are true. The Elvis case shows how sighting of a dead person by his fanatical followers (non relatives) can happen in the thousands over many years.
The explanation of such sightings will differ based on the expectation of the group. Because Jesus followers expected a general eschatological resurrection, they explained it that way. Elvis followers lived in times of paranoia about Big Govt conspiracy. So they explained it that way. The explanation is ad hoc and fits the culture of the day.
That explains everything. What else have you got

But nobody concludes that the person that they saw after death, resurrected after a hallucintation. Why assuming that James was different?

Besides and even more important, some of the appearances would have had to be “group hallucinations” which is impossible(or very very very unlikely) and would require even a greater miracle than a resurrection.

 

[leroy]

Oh Leroy!

You protest about what evidence is yet you made no reply to my post #45 and you're ignoring my #525!

Was it something I said?

Oh Leroy!

You protest about what evidence is yet you made no reply to my post #45 and you're ignoring my #525!

Was it something I said?

You where ignored because the comments are irrelevant……………. None of your alleged contradiction (even if real) falsify any of the 3 pooints in the OP