Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[shunyadragon]

God has detectable manifestations, but God is not a thing that science can test. Science does not know how to test for God or what God does to make things happen in the material world.
This may be the reason that science has a naturalistic methodology but does not say that God does not exist.

What are you referring to as detectable manifestations? Detectable by what methods?

At present, the only 'detectable' anything is by scientific methodology. This is the reason science CANNOT say whether God exists or not.

What is the difference between the universe contains material and the universe is made from this material?
Is that a special definition of "the universe"?

I try and keep things simple. One definition most common is our universe that began(?) with the expansion of matter and energy from a singularity or in some way cyclic. I do not like the term 'Big Bang,' There was no Bang. ALL the current hypotheses or models of our early universe are based on the existence of a Quantum World where a singularity formed or a cyclic expansion took place. The concept of T-0 is a beginning where the three or more dimensional space and time as we know it on a large scale began to exist.

There are many unanswered questions, and most of the indirect evidence is based on math models and Quantum Mechanics fit well withe alternate scientific views of the early universe, and what has been theoretically possible is a boundless universe,

Is the age of the Universe "boundless"?

I was reading this Quora post, and it seems to say that the late, great Stephen Hawking has proven this. https://www.quora.com/Have-scientists-disproved-Stephen-Hawkings-theories-of-the-universe His work in both areas has shown that time is boundless in both directions, both forwards and...

www.physicsforums.com

Note, btw, that Hawking's actual proposal for a universe being "boundless" in the past, which was called the "no boundary" proposal, was not that the universe had existed for an infinite time in the past, but that the spacetime geometry of the very early universe was such that "time" had no meaning there and there was no starting boundary. Basically, instead of the geometry of the universe either extending infinitely into the past or having an "edge" at an initial singularity, it would be more like a hemisphere joined to an expanding cone, with the join being something like the big bang (or possibly the start of inflation). The "expanding cone" part is the part which can be viewed as a conventional expanding universe. The "hemisphere" part is the "no boundary" part, where "time" is not a meaningful concept--it doesn't extend infinitely into the past (since the hemisphere is finite), but it also has no boundary (since the hemisphere has no edge anywhere). AFAIK this proposal is not currently considered a contender for a valid model of the universe. But I'm not familiar with the details of why it is not.

The other 'universe is the physical existence that contains our universe and all possible universes.

 

[shunyadragon]

I doubt their sincerity based on my own many years of being on forums with hecklers. But you will be useful to them.

You may take your case of beer and go watch professional wrestling'

 

[shunyadragon]

I would make a great atheist because Im also argumentative and can pick flaws in scripture. But I know the presence of God and was born of the spirit. I hope I never return to indifference or worse, dedication to Godlesd ideals.

Do you realize that your circular argument is based only on subjective belief and nothing else?

No coherent response here to the atheist or agnostic arguments.

 

[blü 2]

again even if true, that woudlnt refute the alleged facts from the OP

It would qualify them in the manner I indicated. (And an alleged fact is not a fact.)

 

[leroy]

Already done. Go search for my answer if you care to see it. I showed you how. You have no excuse for your ongoing ignorance or blaming others for your shortcomings. Since you're uninterested in doing better, you'll have to settle for whatever fraction of what goes by you that you can retain using your present inadequate methods.

No you have not, and I honestly don’t understand you attitude of avoiding a direct conversation on a relevant topic (that is related to the OP)

I´t almost as if you know it advance that the hypothesis that you have in mind is easy to falsify , so you rather keep it ambiguous and move from one hypothesis to an other.

That is a very dishonest debate tactic, I have answered to your questions, even those that you think I didn’t answer, I repeated my answer, every single time where you asked to address something I did……….. why can´t you show the same courtesy?

When you have made a mistake or a logical fallacy (which you have done plenty) I have quoted your exact words and explain exactly why i think are you wrong, …
I don t avoid the challenge by saying “oh I answered before” nor “you are wrong because I say so” type of answers.

Just explain your hypothesis in detail, (or quote a source that does that) and explain why is that hypothesis better if you already did, then I am sorry I missed your post, why is it so hard to copy-paste something that you already wrote? ……… if you are already wasting 10 minutes or so in inventing exuses for not answering to my request, why don’t you simply invenst those 10 minutes in copy-pasting the mysterious post that you said you have written in the past (twice)

Why do you trust her? If it's based in experience, then your belief might be justified. If it's based in the will to believe, it is not.

Experience, in the same way faith is based on experience.

But the relevant point is that faith and evidence are not mutually exclusive………. I might have empirical evidence that she is not cheating on me in this moment, , but that would not change the fact that I have faith in her.

No, it's not. He told you that he is immune to contradictory evidence in areas where he believes by faith. Since there is no other way to disabuse oneself of an unsound belief but evidence evaluated open-mindedly, he's locked in and proud of it. He sees it as a virtue. In my world, belief by faith is a logical error. It ALWAYS generates a logical fallacy - non sequitur.

I´ve seen WLC claiming that X or Y thing would falsify Christianity………… so you are obviously misrepresenting him............. but irrelevant anyway


these are WLC words
"the discovery of Jesus’ remains would, of course, give good reason to think Christianity to be false"

So obviously he is acknowledging that something’s would falsify his believes.

He is not saying “I belive by faith that my religion is true, and nothing will ever change my mind” as you seem to sugest,

BTW what would convince you that naturalism is false? And please do not answer something vague like “evidence” I want to know exactly what type of discovery or observation would convince you that naturalism is false.

 

[paarsurrey]

Those points are ─

1. Jesus was killed by crucifixion under Pilate.​

That is consistently maintained in the gospels (though Paul never mentions Pilate).

2. Very soon after his death, his disciples reported having experiences which they interpreted as the risen Jesus appearing to them, both individually and in groups.​

That's hypothesis, of course, though not an impossible one.

What we can say is that each of the four gospels has a version of the story ─ Paul does not, other than to remark that Jesus was crucified ─ which in a manner very usual in oral transmission has gone in different directions. It's still the case that none of the NT authors ever met an historical Jesus, so all of them are starting with hearsay and oral tradition, and the authors of Matthew, Luke and John are using Mark as their template, while adding parts of their own. One of the well-recorded aspects of oral transmission is the improvement of the story in the telling, whether to please the hearer or to smooth over parts that the speaker doesn't find attractive. It's striking, for instance, how in the respective crucifixion scenes in chronological order, we start with Mark's abject, defeated and despairing Jesus who thinks his God has forsaken him, to Matthew's similar model, to Luke's more positive model, to John's scene where Jesus is not the victim but the master of ceremonies (as it were).

3. The early Church persecutor Paul also had an experience which he interpreted as Jesus appearing to him and this experience convinced him to convert to Christianity.​

Yes, Paul says this, and it would be an odd thing to invent about oneself. Paul also states specifically that "the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:11-12) Taken literally, it would mean that everything Paul says about Jesus was invented by Paul ─ and points to some mental disorder, perhaps epilepsy ─ but Paul's claim tells us more about Paul than about the whole picture.

(But of course the resurrection as an historical event is both untenable at first glance, and abysmally "evidenced".)

A well reasoned post.

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

The definition that I provided for evidence, doesn’t stops you to apply any standards.

What? Does this make any sense to anyone?

Hearsay would be week evidence, but still evidence.

If there are rumors that say that you stole the store, the cops are more likely to investigate you than a random person.

And given the rumors from the point of view of a judge, you are more likely to be guilty than a random person.

Oops, you went too far. Hearsay may justify an investigation. But a judge is not even going to hear it. He would toss it immediately. You are trying to claim to have reliable evidence, which is the only kind that can even begin to convince a person that reasons rationally. But you simply to not have any. The evidence you have is only hearsay at best. That might justify examining the Jesus story deeper, but it should not convince anyone.

I agree that it wouldn’t be conclusive evidence, but yes rumors do count as evidence……… (just not strong enough to put someone in to prison.

Again, no. They only justify more research. You want to claim to have a rational belief and you need reliable evidence for that. Hearsay, rumors, etc. are not reliable evidence.

Again I define evidence as anything that moves the wager (it could be something objective or something subjective)

And that is why you fail.

My definition doesn’t have standards (neither lax standards nor strong standards)…….. standards are not part of the definition, you can add any standards that you want

And once again, that is why you fail.

no

But that is just my definition (and almost everybody’s definition) I am not interested in imposing my definition.

Feel free to suggest your own defintion.

You might try to look up historical evidence. But in historical evidence magical religious claims are simply not accepted. You are the one trying to claim to have a rational belief. Our only duty is to explain to you why it is not rational.

 

[shunyadragon]

There was no personal insult, just a plain true statement about the amount of effort Atheists put into trying to undermine Christians on this forum.

Agan: "Another day at work for the Atheists trying to undermine Jesus Christ and yet another swing and a miss! The sheer amount of effort that they put into discrediting faith says everything about their lives!"

You must be oversensitive if you see that as an insult?

I will agree yes atheists debate to undermine Theism including Christianity. That is the nature of the debate, and as I said before many of their objections are justified, and I am a Theist. Likewise in debate Christians and other theists try to undermine atheism. Nothing new here.

The problem that remains is your accusation of 'Heckling.' I would like to some examples of what you call 'Heckling.'

 

[leroy]

What? Does this make any sense to anyone?

Oops, you went too far. Hearsay may justify an investigation. But a judge is not even going to hear it. He would toss it immediately. You are trying to claim to have reliable evidence, which is the only kind that can even begin to convince a person that reasons rationally. But you simply to not have any. The evidence you have is only hearsay at best. That might justify examining the Jesus story deeper, but it should not convince anyone.

Again, no. They only justify more research. You want to claim to have a rational belief and you need reliable evidence for that. Hearsay, rumors, etc. are not reliable evidence.

And that is why you fail.

And once again, that is why you fail.

You might try to look up historical evidence. But in historical evidence magical religious claims are simply not accepted. You are the one trying to claim to have a rational belief. Our only duty is to explain to you why it is not rational.

Why did you even mentioned jesus? We are just talking about the definition of a word.


I agree with you, what I call "evidence " doesn't necesairly justify rational belif, it all depends on how much do you move the weiger. .... but so what ?

1 evidence is anything that moves the weiger

2 strong evidence is anything that moves the weiger beyond de 50% probability

3 conclusive evidence beyond de 99%

would you add or remove anything to makes the concept more useful?


1 you claimed that there is no evidence for the resurrection (or god or whatever)

2 I ask you to explain qhat you mean by evidence

3 you refused to provide a definition.
This is a clear indication that your are not interested in a rational conversation.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

But if you look at the story of Jesus, it's not a bad lie, like heaven's gate. Jesus was a good guy who had many important things to say to his people, like love God and your neighbor.

Did he? The Bible idiotically says men are liars and men wrote the Bible so how can we know that he wasn’t just some follower of the Baptist, who was anti-Herodian and executed for irritating the authorities?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Yea, that's an old atheist argument. Hard to refute. No one likes the idea of hell. But there's something about it that keeps you out of trouble. If you think you're going to burn in fire for doing something wrong, it stops you from doing it.

Who does it stop? Criminals gonna criminal.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

It is a long time since I read the Bible, but I don't recall any mention of this very distinguishing feature on the newly resurrected Jesus.

Yeah. Dude should look like he’s applying for a job as a cenobite. He’s hamburger. This guy no one recognizes as Jesus initially just has a few easily made holes. And why is he not bleeding? Why would you walk around in a dusty desert with open wounds without even a basic dressing?

 

[shunyadragon]

Why did you even mentioned jesus? We are just talking about the definition of a word.


I agree with you, what I call "evidence " doesn't necesairly justify rational belif, it all depends on how much do you move the weiger. .... but so what ?

1 evidence is anything that moves the weiger

2 strong evidence is anything that moves the weiger beyond de 50% probability

3 conclusive evidence beyond de 99%

would you add or remove anything to makes the concept more useful?


1 you claimed that there is no evidence for the resurrection (or god or whatever)

2 I ask you to explain qhat you mean by evidence

3 you refused to provide a definition.
This is a clear indication that your are not interested in a rational conversation.

The subject of the thread is the Resurrection of Jesus and NOT weiger.

The first primary evidence is objectively verifiable evidence. Supernatural events in history and today lack objectively verifiable evidence that anything claimed miraculous needs to be justified by such evidence. All ancient tribal religions claim miraculous events and none are verifiable.

As far as historical academic evidence here is another problem with ancient tribal scripture narratives. Academic historical Standards apply here. I have cited them before in the redundant threads on the same topic and can repeat them again here. Evidence needed is archeological, cross-referenced sources, and other records to compare. They are not history as recorded. They contain some facts and persons in history, but are only verified by limited outside evidence. The problem with the gospels there are no records that even recorded the existence of Jesus much less the claimed miraculous events such as the Resurrection. This is universally true of all ancient religions. Academic history cannot take sides for anyone or the other religion.

Religious history is not subject to the same standards as academic history. Religious history is dominated by what people believe us true base on their scriptures and traditional beliefs, Thus apologetics.

 

[shunyadragon]

Who does it stop? Criminals gonna criminals.

Not remotely the topic of the thread. Atheists represent a very distinct minority. Criminals represent a distinct majority in a dominantly Christian Nation.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yeah. Dude should look like he’s applying for a job as a cenobite. He’s hamburger. This guy no one recognizes as Jesus initially just has a few easily made holes. And why is he not bleeding? Why would you walk around in a dusty desert with open wounds without even a basic dressing?

Ditch the greasy hair, tight 1950s jeans, and leather jacket, and address the subject of the thread. Dark shades don't help your argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why did you even mentioned jesus? We are just talking about the definition of a word.

The thread is about the mythical resurrection of Jesus. You are not fooling anyone.

I agree with you, what I call "evidence " doesn't necesairly justify rational belif, it all depends on how much do you move the weiger. .... but so what ?

1 evidence is anything that moves the weiger

There is no wager. Drop the false analogy

2 strong evidence is anything that moves the weiger beyond de 50% probability

Dude!! You have not moved it 1%. You do not even know how to calculate such odds.

3 conclusive evidence beyond de 99%

Nope, not even 1%. To get anywhere close to 99% or even 50% you would need rock solid evidence and you do not have that.

would you add or remove anything to makes the concept more useful?


1 you claimed that there is no evidence for the resurrection (or god or whatever)

No, I said that there is no reliable evidence. You keep trying to change what people claimed.

2 I ask you to explain qhat you mean by evidence

And I did so. You ignored that.

3 you refused to provide a definition.

No, I even made you an offer since you ignored the time I gave you a definition. You ran away from that.

This is a clear indication that your are not interested in a rational conversation.

Pure projection on your part. You ran away from a reasonable offer. When you do that you cannot keep making demands. Did you forget that your refusal to debate properly is why you are on corrections only so often?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

even if they see an obvious miracle such as a behaded man suddenly getting up, reattaching his head and parading around town

How come people who die from obvious fatal causes don’t get resurrected, only people who “die” of something vague? The Bible never has, say, a headless man resurrect.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I'm not saying they were martyred but that they were ostracized and humiliated for their beliefs is pretty well established.

Maybe because their cohorts knew that they were telling things that they knew were wrong?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Furthermore, this doesn't explain the appearance to Paul who was a persecutor of the Church and yet he experienced something that made him convert

If you can’t kill them, infiltrate them.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Most people aren't miracle workers and exorcists who proclaim themselves to be God's eschatological agents and so you can't point to them to show that since whatever supernatural force there may be out there didn't raise them, it also didn't raise Jesus.

They are a dime a dozen.