Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Science doesn't require faith.
In fact, the opposite... "faith" is not allowed in science.

 

[Colt]

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

My mind never changed, we are supposed to be experiencing difficulty, its by design. This first world is about experience.

"The uncertainties of life and the vicissitudes of existence do not in any manner contradict the concept of the universal sovereignty of God. All evolutionary creature life is beset by certain inevitabilities. Consider the following:

1. Is courage—strength of character—desirable? Then must man be reared in an environment which necessitates grappling with hardships and reacting to disappointments.
2. Is altruism—service of one’s fellows—desirable? Then must life experience provide for encountering situations of social inequality.
3. Is hope—the grandeur of trust—desirable? Then human existence must constantly be confronted with insecurities and recurrent uncertainties.
4. Is faith—the supreme assertion of human thought—desirable? Then must the mind of man find itself in that troublesome predicament where it ever knows less than it can believe.
5. Is the love of truth and the willingness to go wherever it leads, desirable? Then must man grow up in a world where error is present and falsehood always possible.
6. Is idealism—the approaching concept of the divine—desirable? Then must man struggle in an environment of relative goodness and beauty, surroundings stimulative of the irrepressible reach for better things.
7. Is loyalty— devotion to highest duty—desirable? Then must man carry on amid the possibilities of betrayal and desertion. The valor of devotion to duty consists in the implied danger of default.
8. Is unselfishness—the spirit of self-forgetfulness—desirable? Then must mortal man live face to face with the incessant clamoring of an inescapable self for recognition and honor. Man could not dynamically choose the divine life if there were no self-life to forsake. Man could never lay saving hold on righteousness if there were no potential evil to exalt and differentiate the good by contrast.
9. Is pleasure—the satisfaction of happiness—desirable? Then must man live in a world where the alternative of pain and the likelihood of suffering are ever-present experiential possibilities." UB 1955

 

[blü 2]

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.

Not a belief, simply an an awareness of the more usual claims.

Which of (what I've found to be) the usual claims do you attribute to God and which do you deny? ─ that God is ─

Omnipotent?​

Omniscient?​

Approachable by humans?​

Responsive to approaches?​

Benevolent and loving?​

Forgiving?​

Omnipresent?​

Perfect (I'm not sure what that means, but it's claimed for God)?​

Infinite?​

Eternal?​

If God has other major attributes in your view, please add them.

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

We're H sap sap and we have that profile in common, but as individuals we can have widely divergent traits, and we get those from our genes and from our culture and from our personal experience. We have no control over our genes, and no control over the influences of culture or experience on us until, often enough, they're not easily altered.

So the freedom (on those occasions we actually have it) to choose freely is against that background,

I don't see how an omnipotent omniscient benevolent creator God can pass the buck so glibly to [his] creatures.

And God appears to have a very poor track record of practical help with things beyond human control, allowing earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, floods, drought, plague, lightning strikes, let alone intervening helpfully when little kids are drowning in swimming pools.

How is it supposed to work?

 

[Subduction Zone]

My mind never changed, we are supposed to be experiencing difficulty, its by design. This first world is about experience.

"The uncertainties of life and the vicissitudes of existence do not in any manner contradict the concept of the universal sovereignty of God. All evolutionary creature life is beset by certain inevitabilities. Consider the following:

1. Is courage—strength of character—desirable? Then must man be reared in an environment which necessitates grappling with hardships and reacting to disappointments.
2. Is altruism—service of one’s fellows—desirable? Then must life experience provide for encountering situations of social inequality.
3. Is hope—the grandeur of trust—desirable? Then human existence must constantly be confronted with insecurities and recurrent uncertainties.
4. Is faith—the supreme assertion of human thought—desirable? Then must the mind of man find itself in that troublesome predicament where it ever knows less than it can believe.
5. Is the love of truth and the willingness to go wherever it leads, desirable? Then must man grow up in a world where error is present and falsehood always possible.
6. Is idealism—the approaching concept of the divine—desirable? Then must man struggle in an environment of relative goodness and beauty, surroundings stimulative of the irrepressible reach for better things.
7. Is loyalty— devotion to highest duty—desirable? Then must man carry on amid the possibilities of betrayal and desertion. The valor of devotion to duty consists in the implied danger of default.
8. Is unselfishness—the spirit of self-forgetfulness—desirable? Then must mortal man live face to face with the incessant clamoring of an inescapable self for recognition and honor. Man could not dynamically choose the divine life if there were no self-life to forsake. Man could never lay saving hold on righteousness if there were no potential evil to exalt and differentiate the good by contrast.
9. Is pleasure—the satisfaction of happiness—desirable? Then must man live in a world where the alternative of pain and the likelihood of suffering are ever-present experiential possibilities." UB 1955

Your posts appear to disagree with that. and I ignored the pointless rant that you merely copied and pasted. By the way, "faith; Is not a pathway to the truth. It appears that so many religions are desperate since they keep extolling it.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

Historians use as many sources as available and archaeological evidence to develop the present knowledge of history which like science changes over time when hew information becomes available.

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,

The majority or minority of events and persons is not the issue. The New Testament, as well as the Old Testament, are compared with other sources, such as archaeology and science. It remains that like all ancient religious narratives the miraculous and supernatural events cannot be determined to be true or false as historical events. Though the Creation stories of Genesis, and the Exodus accounts do not remotely fit the scientific and archaeological objective verifiable evidence and cannot be considered verifiable historical and scientific accounts.

The bottom line is the records of 'some' verified historical events and persons are not sufficient evidence to justify that the whole text of ancient religious narratives is true.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Though the Creation stories of Genesis, and the Exodus accounts do not remotely fit the scientific and archaeological objective verifiable evidence and cannot be considered verifiable historical and scientific accounts.

Not only do they not fit, they conflict, but there is no amount of science or reason capable of offsetting the willful ignorance of those who wrap themselves in "revealed" truth.

 

[shunyadragon]

The skepticism destroys the history and makes them untrue until proven to be true and certainly presumes from the beginning that the supernatural elements there are not true.

This is not true of science. The bottom line is science is neutral as to whether miraculous or supernatural events are true or false because they cannot be falsified by scientific methods. Yes as individuals both scientists and laymen can 'be; believe' or not believe in miracles based on what they believe, but that remains a matter of personal belief.

There is a presumption of illiteracy.

False

There is a presumption that the people who wrote the words were the same as the ones who said the words.

Incoherent English, Please clarify

Luke claims that his sources were witnesses and those there from the beginning.
Reason applied to John's gospel shows that the teller of the story/ies is the apostle John.



That is no more than skeptical denial of the supernatural elements and wanting normal people to agree that the supernatural elements must be BS.



If you use the skeptical presumption that the supernatural elements are BS then you start off your dating at around 70AD and so end up with the writers not knowing eyewitnesses. This is circular reasoning. It starts off presuming the stories are BS and ends by concluding the same. It is amazing that academics don't see this, but continue to deceive themselves and others using such nonsense arguments.



And that does not show that the gospels are non true. The stories began with witnesses and that imo is part of the reason that the gospel was believed. There was good evidence. But evidence survives even if the actual witnesses are gone. They left records and it takes skeptical presumptions and deceitful arguments to say that
the gospels cannot be true.



So says a skeptic of course. It is the history that makes them worth anything at all in regards to who Jesus is and what He did. Who cares if Jesus said, "Be good, love each other". Thousands say that.



Of course, but they don't realise they are trashing them if they claim that their skeptical presumptions are true.



And that does not make Bart Ehrmann right.



And the presuppositions that they bring with them should be put on page 1 of their books so that people don't take their opinions as "gospel".



So?

 

[shunyadragon]

Seeing Big Foot isn’t a subjective experience.

Well, without objectively verifiable evidence it is subjective of the 'mind only.' This is also true of UFOs. In contrast concerning UFOs, some sightings have been confirmed and tracked by documentation by radar in ground-based, military, and civilian aircraft.

Also, seeing ghosts, vampires, zombies, and big hairy spaghetti monsters are not objectively verifiable observations.

 

[Colt]

Well, without objectively verifiable evidence it is subjective of the 'mind only.' This is also true of UFOs. In contrast concerning UFOs, some sightings have been confirmed and tracked by documentation by radar in ground-based, military, and civilian aircraft.

Also, seeing ghosts, vampires, zombies, and big hairy spaghetti monsters are not objectively verifiable observations.

I didn't say anything about "objectively verifiable". I person may see something that to them is a UFO, but that doesn't mean that is a subjective hallucination or that they are irrational. Spirituality is a subjective phenomenon. Seeing the resurrected Jesus was an objective experience.

 

[Brian2]

This is not true of science. The bottom line is science is neutral as to whether miraculous or supernatural events are true or false because they cannot be falsified by scientific methods. Yes as individuals both scientists and laymen can 'be; believe' or not believe in miracles based on what they believe, but that remains a matter of personal belief.

And that personal believe is reflected in what is written about the Bible by people who are supposed to be just historians.
It is interesting that I have other people ask me whether I think a historian should just accept the resurrection story and miracle stories etc without even evidence that a God exists. Then they go on to tell me how stupid and unscientific/unprofessional/non academic that would be.
So in theory science and history are neutral to the existence of God, but in practice that is not the case.

Incoherent English, Please clarify

The gospels, or one or two of them might have been dictated.
Also the gospel of Matthew is said to have been written by Matthew in Hebrew or Aramaic and translated by others later.

 

[Colt]

Not a belief, simply an an awareness of the more usual claims.

Which of (what I've found to be) the usual claims do you attribute to God and which do you deny? ─ that God is ─

Omnipotent?​

Omniscient?​

Approachable by humans?​

Responsive to approaches?​

Benevolent and loving?​

Forgiving?​

Omnipresent?​

Perfect (I'm not sure what that means, but it's claimed for God)?​

Infinite?​

Eternal?​

If God has other major attributes in your view, please add them.


We're H sap sap and we have that profile in common, but as individuals we can have widely divergent traits, and we get those from our genes and from our culture and from our personal experience. We have no control over our genes, and no control over the influences of culture or experience on us until, often enough, they're not easily altered.

So the freedom (on those occasions we actually have it) to choose freely is against that background,

I don't see how an omnipotent omniscient benevolent creator God can pass the buck so glibly to [his] creatures.

And God appears to have a very poor track record of practical help with things beyond human control, allowing earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, floods, drought, plague, lightning strikes, let alone intervening helpfully when little kids are drowning in swimming pools.

How is it supposed to work?

Again, your concept of what God is supposed to be doesn't include natural disasters, accidents, sprained ankle, sickness, toothache etc. Its your God that doesn't exist so you are right about that.

Yes, all true!
Omnipotent?
Omniscient?
Approachable by humans?
Responsive to approaches?
Benevolent and loving?
Forgiving?
Omnipresent?
Perfect (I'm not sure what that means, but it's claimed for God)?
Infinite?
Eternal?

 

[Colt]

Your posts appear to disagree with that. and I ignored the pointless rant that you merely copied and pasted. By the way, "faith; Is not a pathway to the truth. It appears that so many religions are desperate since they keep extolling it.

If you ignore my answers then don't ask questions since your closed mind is made up.

 

[Brian2]

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

So what you say about the Bible is what you know to be true and there is no element of belief in it?

 

[Brian2]

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

I don't know about Tom Cruise and Thetans of Lord Xenu.

 

[Brian2]

Science doesn't require faith.
In fact, the opposite... "faith" is not allowed in science.

That has nothing to do with what I said however.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The 12 disciples (except for Judas)

According to whom?

The apostles (not sure about the number)

According to whom?

The woman that visited Jesus´s tomb (perhaps 3 or so women)

According to whom? Did the women leave us testimony? Nope. In the story, the women don't even recognize Jesus for who he is when they see him.

The 500

Hearsay.

These are the 4 group appearances that are reported in the new testament. (perhaps I missing one or two more)

To whom?

All I am saying is that they could have not been hallucinations because group hallucinations don’t happen.

It doesn't sound to me like a group of anybody witnessed much of anything. I mean, at best, we've got two people claiming to have had some experience with the resurrected Jesus.

(if you whant to say that these are lies, or legends or myths, ) then it´s an other issue, but likely they were not hallucinations.

They could be any of those. Most likely, they're embellishments written by people with an agenda.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't know about Tom Cruise and Thetans of Lord Xenu.

You should come out more.

All followers of all religions use the exact same arguments as you do, to come to mutually exclusive conclusions.

It's all mere bias and assumed conclusions.

It's the nature of "faith". There is no position that can not be held on "faith".
On "faith", you can believe ANYTHING.

This is why, as @Subduction Zone just said, "faith" is not a pathway to truth.
If anything, faith is a pathway to end up with wrong beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That has nothing to do with what I said however.

It has everything to do with it as you claims that science is believed "on faith".

It is not.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are confirming my point, you can´t dismiss the 500 as an hallucination, this is why the hallucination hypotheiss is rejected

I didn't dismiss the "500" as an hallucination. I dismissed it as a hearsay claim that cannot be verified because we do not have anything at all from those supposed 500 people to examine. Anybody can say 500 people saw anything. Of course, I already pointed this out.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

According to whom?

According to whom?

According to whom? Did the women leave us testimony? Nope. In the story, the women don't even recognize Jesus for who he is when they see him.

Hearsay.

To whom?

It doesn't sound to me like a group of anybody witnessed much of anything. I mean, at best, we've got two people claiming to have had some experience with the resurrected Jesus.

They could be any of those. Most likely, they're embellishments written by people with an agenda.

Excellent post. Sadly it will fall on deaf ears.

We are dealing with a person who thinks an explanation that requires "the laws of nature were suspended" is more likely then an explanation involving any of the following:
- someone made a mistake
- someone lied
- someone exaggerated
- someone misremembered
- someone embellished

It's hard to argue with a mind like that... Not to say pointless..