Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[shunyadragon]

Does that matter?
The point is these are all people who claim to have seen a person after the person is supposed to have been dead.

What they conclude from that sighting, or how they explain it, seems irrelevant to the fact that they claim to have seen them.
Muslims also don't believe that jesus resurrected and in fact believe he didn't die in the first place.

The actual question here, is why do you dismiss these people's claims at face value? Why don't you follow their conclusion that these people didn't die?
What's the difference between their claim and the claim of those in the bible?

Both have seen a person after they were supposedly dead...
Yet you believe one and not the other.

Which is kind of strange to me, because the one you choose to believe is the extra ordinary one that requires the suspension of natural law, while the other doesn't.


I don't care for your preaching.
Try to address the point instead.

What is neglected is that many people have visions of a resurrected Jesus throughout Christian history.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have addressed the point and it DOES matter

I don't think it does.

In both cases people claim that they saw people after they were reported dead.
In the case of Elvis etc, people concluded from that that must mean Elvis didn't actually die (just like Muslims believe jesus didn't die).
In the case of Jesus, people (except muslims) concluded that that must mean he was resurrected.

Yet in both cases, people reported seeing them after they were reported dead.

The question is: why do you believe the claims of those who claim to have seen jesus after being reported dead, but not the claims of those who claim to have seen Elvis after being reported dead?

We aren't even talking (yet) about what they concluded from those sightings. Instead, it's just the sightings by themselves.
Why believe one but not the other?

and we have to endure your preaching as well!

Ow? When? And what was I preaching about? Do you even know what "preaching" is?

Sightings of dead celebrities are based on a refusal to believe they died.

I can just as easily say that sightings of dead perceived messiah's are based on an a priori belief of supernatural shenannigans.
And just like your handwaving, that's neither here nor there.

Many people witnessed the death of Jesus

Many more witnessed the burial (with open coffin) of Michael Jackson.
Even me, from the other side of the world. I watched it live on TV.
It was heartbreaking.

and even when he returned, they refused to believe it until they saw him and talked with him with their own eyes.
Jesus is a spiritual presence for believers today.

So is Casper the ghost.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I know it's not what you meant. But it's what you convey and demonstrate in your posts. That was actually my point.

Agreed. We frequently have to rephrase what the believer claims. He calls faith a virtue and a gift that pleases God, and I convert that to insufficiently justified belief.

Please address what was actually said in the post. I'm convinced you didn't read it.

A common complaint in this thread. I asked him about it specifically - did you not read the post? Did you skim over it too quickly? There is there no evidence in your reply that you even read the post. I predicted in that post that he would ignore my request as well and make no acknowledgment of having seen it, and he didn't disappoint.

What you are supposed to do is propose and develop a naturalistic hypothesis and explain why is it better than the resurrection.

Already done multiple times, and there was no need to do it even once. The burden is on you to "prove" resurrection and supernaturalism beyond reasonable doubt, and as you can see, your arguments move nobody.

What exactly is it that you get out of arguing with religious people?

They asked Willie Sutton why he robs banks, and his answer was, "Because that's where they keep the money." I enjoy honing my debating skills, which includes practice identifying and naming logical fallacies. This is an excellent place to find grist for that.

I also like to keep the "magesteria" separate. Faith needs to stay in its lane. I have no objection to "I believe it because it feels right" or "It comforts me to believe," but when the faithful begin poaching from the empiricists toolbox and making erroneous claims about reason and evidence, I feel a need to correct that. Elsewhere, you wrote, "Faith is the pathway to spiritual truth." I object to the word truth being used that way. What you have is a belief that pleases you. Truth, if the word is to mean anything about reality, is discovered empirically, not by imagining.

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

This is how we know that there is no tri-omni god watching over us. None of these things would need to be learned in such a world. People could be created with these qualities. The world as we find it is the world we would expect to find were there no such supreme benevolent protector.

I didn't say anything about "objectively verifiable"

What did you mean by this: "Seeing the resurrected Jesus was an objective experience."

Religious beliefs may or may not always be accurate. The gospels are what we have, there were no journalists or historians at the scene taking notes.

When are they ever accurate? Accurate beliefs are arrived at empirically, not through faith.

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

Combined with your last comment about inaccuracy, this is an argument to disregard the Bible's contents. It lacks accuracy, journalistic integrity, empirical rigor, and linguistic clarity.

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 don't make claims you can't support.

Empiricists expect you to justify your claims. As I said, if you choose the language of faith, such as, "I just feels right to me," who can or would want to disagree with that? But as I said, when you start to try to add claims of evidence and reason to your faith-based beliefs, you can expect rebuttal. Those are the empiricist's and critical thinker's rules of engagement in the marketplace of ideas. It's not surprising that the faithful object or are offended. They're not used to critical scrutiny, and they typically frame the experience as attack and persecution by mean-spirited enemies of God. You do.

 

[Colt]

I don't think it does.

In both cases people claim that they saw people after they were reported dead.
In the case of Elvis etc, people concluded from that that must mean Elvis didn't actually die (just like Muslims believe jesus didn't die).
In the case of Jesus, people (except muslims) concluded that that must mean he was resurrected.

Yet in both cases, people reported seeing them after they were reported dead.

The question is: why do you believe the claims of those who claim to have seen jesus after being reported dead, but not the claims of those who claim to have seen Elvis after being reported dead?

We aren't even talking (yet) about what they concluded from those sightings. Instead, it's just the sightings by themselves.
Why believe one but not the other?



Ow? When? And what was I preaching about? Do you even know what "preaching" is?



I can just as easily say that sightings of dead perceived messiah's are based on an a priori belief of supernatural shenannigans.
And just like your handwaving, that's neither here nor there.




Many more witnessed the burial (with open coffin) of Michael Jackson.
Even me, from the other side of the world. I watched it live on TV.
It was heartbreaking.



So is Casper the ghost.

Yes, your Atheist preaching is preaching! You have faith in a Godless universe, you cant prove it, so Atheism is a form of religious faith.

Like people saw 9-11 happen but believe that the government conspired to blow up the WTC and Pentagon as a reason to start a war. People can believe things that are too difficult to accept, like one of their pop stars dying.

The spirit of truth within me validates the resurrection of Jesus 2000 years ago. I believed long before I ever read the Gospels.

 

[Colt]

Agreed. We frequently have to rephrase what the believer claims. He calls faith a virtue and a gift that pleases God, and I convert that to insufficiently justified belief.

A common complaint in this thread. I asked him about it specifically - did you not read the post? Did you skim over it too quickly? There is there no evidence in your reply that you even read the post. I predicted in that post that he would ignore my request as well and make no acknowledgment of having seen it, and he didn't disappoint.

Already done multiple times, and there was no need to do it even once. The burden is on you to "prove" resurrection and supernaturalism beyond reasonable doubt, and as you can see, your arguments move nobody.

They asked Willie Sutton why he robs banks, and his answer was, "Because that's where they keep the money." I enjoy honing my debating skills, which includes practice identifying and naming logical fallacies. This is an excellent place to find grist for that.

I also like to keep the "magesteria" separate. Faith needs to stay in its lane. I have no objection to "I believe it because it feels right" or "It comforts me to believe," but when the faithful begin poaching from the empiricists toolbox and making erroneous claims about reason and evidence, I feel a need to correct that. Elsewhere, you wrote, "Faith is the pathway to spiritual truth." I object to the word truth being used that way. What you have is a belief that pleases you. Truth, if the word is to mean anything about reality, is discovered empirically, not by imagining.

This is how we know that there is no tri-omni god watching over us. None of these things would need to be learned in such a world. People could be created with these qualities. The world as we find it is the world we would expect to find were there no such supreme benevolent protector.

What did you mean by this: "Seeing the resurrected Jesus was an objective experience."

When are they ever accurate? Accurate beliefs are arrived at empirically, not through faith.

Combined with your last comment about inaccuracy, this is an argument to disregard the Bible's contents. It lacks accuracy, journalistic integrity, empirical rigor, and linguistic clarity.

Then don't make claims you can't support.

Empiricists expect you to justify your claims. As I said, if you choose the language of faith, such as, "I just feels right to me," who can or would want to disagree with that? But as I said, when you start to try to add claims of evidence and reason to your faith-based beliefs, you can expect rebuttal. Those are the empiricist's and critical thinker's rules of engagement in the marketplace of ideas. It's not surprising that the faithful object or are offended. They're not used to critical scrutiny, and they typically frame the experience as attack and persecution by mean-spirited enemies of God. You do.

I can state my faith in God just like you can state your faith in a Godless universe. Science is useless in analyzing spirituality. It takes no great intellect to pick flaws.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, your Atheist preaching is preaching!

You are just repeating the claim. I asked you to give a specific example.
But you seem to have a habit of not answering questions and instead just ignoring them.

You have faith in a Godless universe,

No.

you cant prove it, so Atheism is a form of religious faith.

No

Like people saw 9-11 happen but believe that the government conspired to blow up the WTC and Pentagon as a reason to start a war.

What are you on about?

People can believe things that are too difficult to accept, like one of their pop stars dying.

People can also believe things that they really want to be true, like miracles happening.
People can also make mere honest mistakes.

I also love how you people find it so easy to give a plausible reasoning to explain why some people see Elvis while Elvis is dead, but are completely unable to do the same when it comes to your own religious beliefs.

It's almost as if you have a bias. Almost.

The spirit of truth within me validates the resurrection of Jesus 2000 years ago. I believed long before I ever read the Gospels.

It's funny as that makes matters even worse for your case.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can state my faith in God just like you can state your faith in a Godless universe.

The bolded part is nonsensical.
People are atheist because they do NOT have faith.

I always chuckle when theists try to lower atheism to their level of "faith" only to then try and dismiss it because apparantly "faith is bad"



It's like failing twice.

Science is useless in analyzing spirituality.

Yeah. Science is useless in analyzing non-existing things.

It takes no great intellect to pick flaws.

Uhu.
Too easy.

 

[Colt]

The bolded part is nonsensical.
People are atheist because they do NOT have faith.

I always chuckle when theists try to lower atheism to their level of "faith" only to then try and dismiss it because apparantly "faith is bad"



It's like failing twice.



Yeah. Science is useless in analyzing non-existing things.



Uhu.
Too easy.

The Atheist faith is a sort of comfort while whistling past the graveyard, an excuse for the spiritual slothful child.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Atheist faith is a sort of comfort while whistling past the graveyard, an excuse for the spiritual slothful child.

There's no such thing as "the atheist faith", no matter how many times you repeat it.

 

[leroy]

Already done multiple times, and there was no need to do it even once.

No you haven´t provided and developed a naturalistic hypothesis , and yes it is necessary to provide such hypothesis because that is what the OP is about.

If you are not willing to provide a naturalistic hypothesis then why did you participated in a thread where that is the main topic and main requirement?

The burden is on you to "prove" resurrection and supernaturalism beyond reasonable doubt,

That is a straw man fallacy.

I am not claiming that I can show the resurrection beyond reasonable doubt.



Also note my courtesy, I am accusing you for making a logical fallacy, and I supported that accusation by quoting your actual words………….. (why don’t you show the same courtesy when you make random accusations of me committing fallacies?)

+

and as you can see, your arguments move nobody.

Those are not my arguments, but the arguments of various scholars, and yes, many are moved by those arguments.

 

[leroy]

No. You started off with a strawman. Why assume that the apostles saw him?

Well I am refuting the naturalistic hypothesis that you asked me to refute,

 

[leroy]

Hearsay.



Extra-ordinary things requiring the suspension of natural law is never "more likely" then someone made a mistake or lied or exaggerated or embellished.



How do you calculate the probability that a god exists?
How do you calculate the probability that something that requires the suspension of natural law happened?



Correction: that a few people (at best) CLAIMED that hundreds of people concluded....
And it's actually vs "the probability that someone made a mistake, lied, exaggerated, embellished".

And as I have said multiple times already, the latter is as good as 1 in 1. As people do that ALL THE TIME. We have innumerable examples of it.
And we have exactly ZERO examples of extra-ordinary things that require the suspension of natural law.



Your option 2 is a strawman as it is not what I said.
What I say is more likely is: "someone made a mistake or lied or exaggerated or embellished".
All of which are more likely then "the laws of nature were suspended".



/facepalm



View attachment 80457

our option 2 is a strawman as it is not what I said.
What I say is more likely is: "someone made a mistake or lied or exaggerated or embellished".
All of which are more likely then "the laws of nature were suspended".

Ok then devolve your hypothesis in detail, so I don’t commit straw man arguments again

 

[leroy]

Any of the options (legend, mistake, hallucination, lies, embellishments, exaggerations, myth, allegory,...) is more likely then "the laws of nature were suspended"

Ok pick one and explain why is it more likely that the” laws of nature where suspended”

 

[leroy]

Now is a good moment for you to define what YOU mean by faith then.

faith = trust


Trust and evidence are not mutually exclusive,.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No you haven´t provided and developed a naturalistic hypothesis , and yes it is necessary to provide such hypothesis because that is what the OP is about.
If you are not willing to provide a naturalistic hypothesis then why did you participated in a thread where that is the main topic and main requirement?

This poster has already done what you've requested. Scroll back.

That is a straw man fallacy.

I am not claiming that I can show the resurrection beyond reasonable doubt.



Also note my courtesy, I am accusing you for making a logical fallacy, and I supported that accusation by quoting your actual words………….. (why don’t you show the same courtesy when you make random accusations of me committing fallacies?)

Said poster has always pointed out which logical fallacies you are making. Scroll back.

You're not claiming you can show the resurrection beyond reasonable doubt? What are you claiming then?

+



Those are not my arguments, but the arguments of various scholars, and yes, many are moved by those arguments.

Whomever the arguments belong to, you're the one using them here.

 

[leroy]

It is not.



Plenty of people claim to have seen Elvis, Tupac, Bruce Lee, Michael Jackson, etc long after they died. Even Hitler.
There's nothing extra-ordinary about people claiming to see people that were already died for quite some time.

You keep repeating that straw man even after I corrected you multiple times,

1 Not extraordinary: a random guy concluded that Maybe Elvis didn’t died, because he saw someone that looks like Elvis,

2 Extraordinary: Elvis’s brother (+many other close relatives) concluded that Elvis resurrected because they saw someone that looks like Elvis, to the point of being sure beyond reasonable doubt , and even being willing to die.

If you want to argue that James and the apostles didn’t saw anything, then you have a whole different hypothesis, where the Elvis analogy becomes irrelevant.

so please share and develope that hypotheis

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ok pick one and explain why is it more likely that the” laws of nature where suspended”

That's your job.

 

[leroy]

When all else fails, let's go for the good ol' ad hominem

But ironically you are still avoiding the question.

¿is your observation of me buying dog food evidence that I have a dog?

Answer yes or no.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't have a hypothesis nor do I need one. We're talking about your arguments and your claims here.
You claimed there were a whole bunch of witnesses to the resurrection and I am currently disputing that claim.

Have we just abandoned this one, Leroy?

 

[SkepticThinker]

But ironically you are still avoiding the question.

¿is your observation of me buying dog food evidence that I have a dog?

Answer yes or no.

The poster answered you at least twice (Post #987 is one of them)