Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[shunyadragon]

And do you reject all biases historical sources? Or only those that contradict your view?

Historical Sources as a whole are not reliable nor unreliable, each sentence stands or fall by their own merits.

Historical resources dp vary as to their reliability. For example, Roman government records are considered pretty accurate. The scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism are not considered accurate. They are considered religious narratives containing miracles written in the context of the time and culture they were written. They do contain some facts and persons in history. In fact. Most of their scriptures are considered to be not first-person witness records of the historical time they refer to.

 

[leroy]

Let's follow the same standards that historians do. They simply reject supernatural claims because they are always the least likely "correct" version. Whether it is Christian history, Roman history, Greek history, Arabic history, the list goes on and on and on.

Well what can I say, I don’t share the philosophical assumption of naturalism.

they are always the least likely "

why are a supernatrual claims like the resurection less likelly than naturalistic alternatives?

Just kidding, I know that you don t like to answer to direct questions

And I noticed that when your silly claim was challenged that you did not support it. Are you admitting that it was false?

And will you make an exception and quote that claim?

 

[leroy]

Historical resources dp vary as to their reliability. For example, Roman government records are considered pretty accurate.

Yes, but they are biased usually in favor of the government. And that is not an big issue,

bias en general is not a big issue, historians know how to identify and deal with bias

The scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism are not considered accurate. They are considered religious narratives containing miracles written in the context of the time and culture they were written. They do contain some facts and persons in history. In fact. Most of their scriptures are considered to be not first-person witness records of the historical time they refer to.

The vas majority of the testable historical events reported in the new testament are true. Few (if any) events have been proven wrong.

For me this is enough to conclude that the documents in general are reliable,

 

[leroy]

What academic qualifications and experience in the sciences involving evolution and a universe billions of years old do you have to question science other than saying it is ridiculous?

Nobody is questioning evolution nor any science.

The ridiculous idea that I was talking about is the idea that the apostles concluded “resurrection” because they saw a guy that looks like Jesus.

The supernatural and the miraculous are clearly and specifically defined as beliefs and claimed events that cannot be explained by Methodological Naturalism and without objectively verifiable evidence.

So supernatural is that which we don’t have (and can´t have) verifiable evidence…………..awesome……… all you did was a vocabulary game to exclude the supernatural by default.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well what can I say, I don’t share the philosophical assumption of naturalism.

Yes, you regularly deny reality. We know that.

why are a supernatrual claims like the resurection less likelly than naturalistic alternatives?

Because there is no reliable evidence for them. There is endless evidence for natural events.

Just kidding, I know that you don t like to answer to direct questions

I see that you are talking about yourself again. Did you know that there is actually a commandment in the Bible that bans bearing false witness against your neighbor. I am sure that you would not want to break that.

And will you make an exception and quote that claim?

I won't quote it, but I will paraphrase it. You said that most historians accepted the "facts" (not actual facts) in the OP.

 

[blü 2]

That is correct, God is the First Source and center of all that exists.

Next time you're talking to [him] tell [him] a lot of people thought Covid was not just dumb but outright nasty, and that [he] needs to lift [his] game. And why is [he] sitting on [his] hands just watching global warming happen? Where's that famous "benevolence"?

 

[Brian2]

That is not detectable by the English definition of the word.

But I know English and I know my faith. I can detect God through my faith which allows me to view things with faith and see God's hand in them.

I consider this a failure to respond on a rational way the objective and science/academic history considers what is evidence and, of course, detectable.

My faith again tells me that the Biblical account of creation is true. That does not say just how God created things or if there are other universes etc but just says that God did it.
The scientific questions can be answered by science but they don't include an answer that says the universe was not created or that it is cyclical,,,,,,,,,,,,,, imo.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But I know English and I know my faith. I can detect God through my faith which allows me to view things with faith and see God's hand in them.



My faith again tells me that the Biblical account of creation is true. That does not say just how God created things or if there are other universes etc but just says that God did it.
The scientific questions can be answered by science but they don't include an answer that says the universe was not created or that it is cyclical,,,,,,,,,,,,,, imo.

The creation account includes the Adam and Eve myth and might as well include the other myths of Genesis with it. If your faith tells you that those are true then your faith does not work propoerly.

 

[Brian2]

The creation account includes the Adam and Eve myth and might as well include the other myths of Genesis with it. If your faith tells you that those are true then your faith does not work propoerly.

But that is according to your faith in what science says and according to your interpretation of those stories.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But that is according to your faith in what science says and according to your interpretation of those stories.

Please do not accuse others of your sins. Faith is your flaw, not mot mine.

 

[Colt]

Next time you're talking to [him] tell [him] a lot of people thought Covid was not just dumb but outright nasty, and that [he] needs to lift [his] game. And why is [he] sitting on [his] hands just watching global warming happen? Where's that famous "benevolence"?

See, you do have a belief about what God is supposed to be and do. A sort of cosmic Santa Clause who isn’t managing things correctly!

We are free will beings on a world wherein self governance is our responsibility.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See, you do have a belief about what God is supposed to be and do. A sort of cosmic Santa Clause who isn’t managing things correctly!

We are free will beings on a world wherein self governance is our responsibility.

No, I think the problem is that you can't make up your mind. Is God for all practical purposes totally impotent or not?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, none of th enaturalistic hypotheisis that you propose are “mundane claimes” that happen every day.

Yes they are.

EVERY DAY people make mistakes, lie, exaggerate, hallucinate, misremember,....

We have innumerable examples of it.
But we have zero examples of extra-ordinary things that require suspension of natural law, like resurrections.
So again, right out the gates, the most likely (BY FAR) when it comes to a claim of resurrection is that someone made a mistake rather then it actually having occurred.

(using your elvis example)

People don’t conclude that someone resurrected because they saw someone that looks like him. To say that hundreds of people , (including people like are closely related to Jesus) concluded that Jesus resurrected just because they saw someone that looks like Jesus would be an extraordinary claim, something that has never been reported to happen.

The "100s" of people is again just a claim. Likely an exaggeration, since we have no "100s" independent sources of it.

I'm reminded of an event a few years ago.
We had a bakery in our street. The boiler caught fire. It was ridiculously small. Basically just a small flame coming out of it and some smoke due to melting plastic. Firetruck came and put it out. It was mega minor. There was no serious damage or danger at all. Only the boiler was a bit damaged and had to be replaced. The bakery could even simply continue to operate. A few people were in the street watching the firemen go inside, come out and leave again.

2 days later, I was at the local grocery store and people were talking about it.
By that time, the story had exploded into "HALF THE BAKERY BURNED UP".

Again, it's what humans do: they exaggerate, they embellish, they make mistakes, they misremember. It's the basics of the telephone game.
Someone sees someone that looks like Elvis (even realizing it's not really Elvis) and a few days later "100s of people saw Elvis alive and well!!!".

So it doesn’t matter if you pick resurrection, or “mistake” as a hypothesis, in any case you are stock with an extraordinary event that has not been proven to happen. and the same is true with other naturalistic hypotheis.

The question here is "what is more likely"?
That humans did what humans do all the time (embellish, make mistakes, misremember, exaggerate,...), or that the laws of nature were suspended?

That is all. And if the only evidence you have are unverifiable claims, then that will NEVER be enough to make the "laws of nature were suspended" option more likely then "humans did what humans do all the time" option.

So basically your arguments is that “there is no evidence for the supernatural, because you don’t know how to define it?” that doesn’t seem like a huge victory, all you did is a semantic move.

Not semantics. Instead, just a rational pointing out of the nonsensical notion that is the "supernatural".
People who claim it exists / happens, fail to define it in testable ways.
Hence, no evidence CAN exist for it, since there is nothing there to even have evidence for or against.

Do you have evidence for or against "gooblydockbloblo"?

I am personally not interested in labels, the OP is about the resurrection, whether if you want to call label it as “supernatural or not” is irrelevant.

Indeed.
And my stance is that unless you can come up with extra-ordinary evidence, the option that "humans did what humans do all the time" is more likely then "the laws of nature were suspended".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And to demand for sources outside the bible, presupposes that none of the documents of the new testament is reliable, this assumption has to be justified…………..

Again shift of the burden of proof.
This is basically saying that they SHOULD be considered reliable "until shown otherwise".
That's not how it works.

So @TagliatelliMonster faith means "belive without evidence" and evidence is defined as “vidence is any available body of independently verifiable facts that either exclusively matches or contradicts the testable predictions of a certain hypothesis / theory / idea.

Would it be fair to say that you have faith in “natural abiogenesis?”

No.
Various abiogenesis hypothesis exist, with varying degrees of evidence and none conclusive enough to be promoted to theory.
The evidence that does exist, matches the predictions of the hypothesis.

Also, at one point there was no life and then there was. Hence, factually life started somehow.
I consider a natural origin the most likely simply because there is no evidence of any other contended.
And we do have evidence of chemistry existing.
We do have evidence of chemical processes that produce complex biological compounds known as the building blocks of life.
So the evidence is mounting in favor of a natural origin.

I'm unaware of any evidence of anything else.

……….. you obviously don’t have what you call evidence for abiogenesis, so there is no way out

False

Ether: change your defintions or admit that you have faith in abiogenesis.

I don't have to do either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well if the options are

1 Nothing caused the big bang

2 and something caused the big bang

False dichotomy. Both are invalid.

1. there's nothing north of north
2. there's something north of north

Same story. There is no "north of north".

1. purple has a taste
2. purple is tasteless

Same story. "purple" is a color and the concept of taste simply does not apply. It lacks the required properties for "taste" to be an option.

Likewise, causality does not apply at the origins of the universe, because there is no time for a cause to happen in. Causality "before" T = 0 is a nonsensical notion as the space-time continuum is currently understood.

Option 2 seems more reasonable, all you have to do is invoke “different physycs” or different “rules”

IOW, make imaginary assumptions that fly in the face of current understanding.

While option 1 absurd. (logically abusrd)

Both are absurd.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Granted, given that definition of “independent” we don’t have “independent evidence” for the resurrection.

but so what?

So all you have are biased claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok so does your observation of me buying dog food counts as evidence in favor that I have a dog?

Yes or No?

It counts as evidence that you likely are planning to feed a dog. Perhaps your own dog, perhaps someone else's dog.
Or maybe you like to eat dogfood yourself. You wouldn't be the first to do that.
Not sure where you are trying to go with this.

Maybe, but “naturally flows, “ was not part of your definition.

I considered that a given. I'm sorry if I overestimated your ability to understand what was meant by the word "prediction" in context of "hypothesis".

Ok, but assume that there are 3 competing hypothesis and only 2 of them predict “A”…………. would A counts as evidence for these 2 hypothesis (yes)
Does it matches your definition (NO)

It would count as being evidence against the third that predicts B instead of A. That one will now be disproven.
It would be evidence for the other two, but it would be meaningless to distinguish which of both is the correct one.
For that, you would have to look towards other predictions that are exclusive to it and find evidence that matches those predictions.

Again, if 2 ideas both predict A and you then find A... what is the value of A?
At best you can say that it doesn't disproof both ideas. It supports both ideas, so it is useless to distinguish between them.

Say there is a murder case and you have two suspects.
From security camera footage you know for example that the guilty person drives a pink Mercedes. As it turns out, both suspects drive the same pink Mercedes.
What is the value of that security camera footage?

Will you waste time with that evidence in court? Or will you rather try and find evidence that points exclusively to just one of both suspects?

My conspiracy theory says that scientists are fabricating evidence so that people wrongly think that evolution (common ancestry) is true

Nested hierarchies are independently verifiable.

So in this hypothesis the alleged nested hierarchies that you found in various reports, are just lies and made up information.

We don't need to rely on reports. Anyone can verify this.
This is the difference between objective independently verifiable evidence and mere claims.

So in both hypothesis we would predict to have evidence/reports, of NH ………….. so nested hierarchies are not an exclusive prediction for common ancestry.

It's funny how you have to make up stuff just to try and make your nonsensical points.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

why are a supernatrual claims like the resurection less likelly than naturalistic alternatives?

I already told you.

Because "someone made a mistake" is always more likely then "the laws of nature were violated / suspended".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So supernatural is that which we don’t have (and can´t have) verifiable evidence…………..awesome……… all you did was a vocabulary game to exclude the supernatural by default.

Please define "supernatural" in such a way that it can have evidence.

I already told you: the reason I say it has no evidence, is because nobody ever offered a definition for it in such a way that it even CAN have evidence.


It's the same reason why there is no evidence for "gooblydockbloblo"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But I know English and I know my faith. I can detect God through my faith which allows me to view things with faith and see God's hand in them.

So about the same way that Tom Cruise is capable of seeing his inner Thetans.

My faith again tells me that the Biblical account of creation is true.

So about the same way that Tom Cruise knows that Lord Xenu is real and that he is "clear" and an "Operating Thetan".