Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[Colt]

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.

Faith is the pathway to spiritual truth. Religious beliefs may or may not always be accurate. Jesus taught in parables which the spirit born could understand while the merely religious would not. In fact it was the spiritual truth content that was/is important, NOT the perfect details of his life.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Exactly.

Just like my bakery example a couple posts back.
A minor boiler fire, with a couple of flames coming out of it and a bit of smoke due to melting plastic, with no further damage or danger to anything or anyone.
And 2 days later, at the grocery store that event turned into "HALF THE BAKERY BURNED UP"

It's what humans do.

They take a minor fact or even just a rumor and as it spreads it takes on a life of its own and explodes into a fantastical story.
It happens all the time...


But no.... "the laws of nature were suspended" is a "better" explanation for the story.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

If you are discussing things that may be objective or subjective you have to include the question of 'objectively verifiable;e evidence. Being 'subjective' does not conclude that anything is a hallucination or irrational, but of the mind only' by definition. Claims of miraculous or supernatural events such as the unconfirmed sightings of the resurrected Jesus, UFOs, or big hairy spaghetti monsters are by definition subjective..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Faith is the pathway to spiritual truth. Religious beliefs may or may not always be accurate. Jesus taught in parables which the spirit born could understand while the merely religious would not. In fact it was the spiritual truth content that was/is important, NOT the perfect details of his life.

No, that has never been shown to be true. People of clearly different religions arrived at their beliefs by faith. Faith did not help any of the. It only confirmed their prejudices.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Faith is the pathway to spiritual truth.

Uhu.

Islamic "truth", scientology "truth", hinduism "truth", jewish "truth", christian "truth", urantia "truth", hare krishna "truth", greek pantheon "truth", viking "truth", roman pantheon "truth", zoroastrian "truth", astrology "truth", .................................................................................

Religious beliefs may or may not always be accurate.

Well "faith" certainly isn't the way to find out, clearly.

Jesus taught in parables which the spirit born could understand while the merely religious would not.

Yeah. According to Ron Hubbard, you first need your mind to be "clear" through dianetics before you can understand your inner thetan.
Tom Cruise confirms. On faith, off course.

In fact it was the spiritual truth content that was/is important, NOT the perfect details of his life.

Yes, yes... preaching is going to help you convince me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

or big hairy spaghetti monsters.

Exactly.... I mean... everybody knows that such monsters are made from tagliatelli. Duh.

Bunch of blasphemers.........
They all just want to sin, I tell ya!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Its true that's why you don't like being called out!

Nobody was "called out." That's the point.
Just calling someone names while contributing nothing to the discussion doesn't quite accomplish what you seem to think it does.

 

[Colt]

If you are discussing things that may be objective or subjective you have to include the question of 'objectively verifiable;e evidence. Being 'subjective' does not conclude that anything is a hallucination or irrational, but of the mind only' by definition. Claims of miraculous or supernatural events such as the unconfirmed sightings of the resurrected Jesus, UFOs, or big hairy spaghetti monsters are by definition subjective..

This isn't a science lab and the Gospel writers weren't quibbling about terms.

 

[Colt]

Nobody was "called out." That's the point.
Just calling someone names while contributing nothing to the discussion doesn't quite accomplish what you seem to think it does.

I didn't call anyone names, atheists seem very touchy. Is that a name? Oversensitive? Thats a name I guess.

 

[shunyadragon]

Exactly.... I mean... everybody knows that such monsters are made from tagliatelli. Duh.

Bunch of blasphemers.........
They all just want to sin, I tell ya!

Leave the spaghetti out on the counter for a week or so it will become big and hairy and begin to move about. Time to kill it before it multiplies.

 

[Colt]

Uhu.

Islamic "truth", scientology "truth", hinduism "truth", jewish "truth", christian "truth", urantia "truth", hare krishna "truth", greek pantheon "truth", viking "truth", roman pantheon "truth", zoroastrian "truth", astrology "truth", .................................................................................





Well "faith" certainly isn't the way to find out, clearly.



Yeah. According to Ron Hubbard, you first need your mind to be "clear" through dianetics before you can understand your inner thetan.
Tom Cruise confirms. On faith, off course.



Yes, yes... preaching is going to help you convince me.

If you understood the generic nature spiritual truth then you could find it in most all of those religions with the exception of Scientology which is just retarded!

 

[shunyadragon]

This isn't a science lab and the Gospel writers weren't quibbling about terms.

The problem is you are not the gospel writers who wrote simply what they believed. The issue is clear and specific today. There is no objective evidence for miraculous or supernatural events today or in the distant past therefore of the mind only and not remotely objective,

 

[SkepticThinker]

You try to enforce your faith in a godless universe on others often on this forum, so I doubt your sincerity.

So you've decided to ... emulate the hecklers? Because that's all you're doing here, apparently.

Take note also, that you've made an attempt to drag "I'm not convinced a thing exists" down to the level of faith, that is required of your religion, in some weird attempt to denigrate atheists and drag them down to your level. I always find that a strange argument to make.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you understood the generic nature spiritual truth then you could find it in most all of those religions with the exception of Scientology which is just retarded!

The reality is anyone of the many conflicting religions or belief systems considers other religions as 'retarded' or worse including Scientology. Most belief systems consider themselves egocentrically above and exclusive of others including Scientology, and with all, it is a subjective claim.

 

[SkepticThinker]

like this------>"And faith is not a rational belief." Billions of rational people have faith, so the accusation has been proven which leaves you to come up with some bs to wiggle your way out of it.

Faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have evidence. Otherwise, they'd give the evidence instead.
-Matt Dillahunty

 

[CG Didymus]

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

All throughout the Bible things could very well be explained as embellishments. Elijah being carried off on a fiery chariot. Daniel's friends surviving being thrown into a furnace. Then in the NT people coming out of their graves and walking around Jerusalem? God speaking from heaven? And not only Jesus appearing and disappearing, but then ascending into the clouds? Great embellishments to the story. But real, actual events? Hard to believe and impossible to prove.

But back 2000 years ago? Maybe people's word of supernatural events wasn't so out of the ordinary. Things like, "He was born of a virgin" and "He turned water into wine." and "He walked on water." and "He rose from the dead and ascended into heaven", were more believable back then. And for some, they are even believable today. Just because it is written in a book that some people call sacred and the infallible Word of God.

 

[Colt]

The problem is you are not the gospel writers who wrote simply what they believed. The issue is clear and specific today. There is no objective evidence for miraculous or supernatural events today or in the distant past therefore of the mind only and not remotely objective,

The gospels are what we have, there were no journalists or historians at the scene taking notes. In addition the presence of Christ now in spirit provides the conviction of truth today for believers.

 

[Colt]

Faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have evidence. Otherwise, they'd give the evidence instead.
-Matt Dillahunty

Subjective experience with God doesn't come with objective verification. Atheist's know this so they get off on demanding answers that they know cant be proven, then congratulate themselves! For the apostles everything was still a matter of faith regardless of what they witnessed!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ok, in that case, I don’t have faith in God, or in the resurrection. (using your definition)

Obviously you are making your own definition; this is not what Christians mean when they use the term faith.

It is almost always what Christians actually mean when they invoke faith, though they may not realize it. Otherwise, they'd just give the evidence instead of invoking faith.

 

[Colt]

The reality is anyone of the many conflicting religions or belief systems considers other religions as 'retarded' or worse including Scientology. Most belief systems consider themselves egocentrically above and exclusive of others including Scientology, and with all, it is a subjective claim.

Yes, that's a common characteristic of religions, its how the values of cultures get preserved. I shouldn't assume that everyone who learns about scientology would see how stupid of an invention it is. Like Noah's flood, I knew that was a load of nonsense when I was a kid! I do not know why many adult Christians believe such a fabricated story other than perhaps a blind trust in the institutional claim of infallible scripture books.