Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You don't acknowledge the existence of spiritual truth

I don't use the word truth to apply to false ideas, insufficiently evidenced ideas, or unfalsifiable ideas.

you insist that you are only a mechanistic phenomenon

That's how you describe being a critical thinker and strict empiricist as if he were missing some dimension because he doesn't join you in comforting flights of reverie - another variation of "I see further, you are a myopic materialist locked into scientism so you can't see my truths."

If you had truths, you could share them, and others would recognize them as such. But you don't so you can't.

Here's another, one of my favorites. This guy has atheists blindly bumping into walls making measurements. Gotta love the dig he takes at religion. You see, he's spiritual, and they're only religious, so his beliefs are authentic and theirs are derivative, but at least they're not like a robot vacuums with zero inner life like atheists.

Its frustrating to your need to control others that despite all of your attempt at humanist truth, we still have Living faith in God.

I have no desire to control you. I'm correcting you. I don't expect it to modify your thinking, but hopefully it is useful to other skeptics making similar arguments. What I'm offering is not a different opinion, but another way to express it. What's different isn't the message. It's the demeanor. Look at how I write to you. Your truth is not my truth. If you had truth you could share it, but you don't and can't. Your faith is fine but don't call it reason. That's different than merely rebutting you.

Look at what I say to Leroy. He doesn't read what written to him. He engages in bad faith argumentation. He has no right to expect anything from other posters when he gives nothing.

No matter how many times you deny your false hope in a Godless universe you still have the Atheist Faith.

Hey, if you have to be stuck with faith and a religion - words which seem to garner a lot of criticism - then everybody else does, too, right?

"I always flinch in embarrassment for the believer who trots out, 'Atheism is just another kind of faith,' because it's a tacit admission that taking claims on faith is a silly thing to do. When you've succumbed to arguing that the opposition is just as misguided as you are, it's time to take a step back and rethink your attitudes." - Amanda Marcotte

Did you want to address that? Why is she wrong in your opinion assuming that you believe that she is? Or maybe you agree. I do.

The OP *is* largely about naturalistic hypothesis and how they fail when compared with the resurrection. It is your burden to show that that the author is wrong

Already rebutted. You didn't see it, did you?

and that at least one naturalistic hypothesis is better (using the criteria explain in that same post) You haven’t done that, and you know it

I do know it. You don't. And you seem to prefer your ignorance to easily acquired answers. I guess my last post referring to Helen Keller had no impact, either. It's unfathomable to me. Commonplace among the believers, but still unfathomable to me. I would not let you write about me like that without addressing it. Why? Self-respect. You might want to think about that.

 

[Trailblazer]

Faith is believing something you know ain't true.
- Mark Twain

Faith is believing something you know is true.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well you are expected to have a hypothesis………. That is the intend of the OP….why are you running away from that challenge?........ the OP even has rules to determine which hypotheis is better……………….so all you have to do is provide your hypotheiss and explain why is it better.

Some of the witnesses of the resurrection are reported in the verses that I quoted yesterday.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

And I responded to this. I asked you questions about it and pointed things out. I was waiting for your response to that.

This whole entire paragraph, , save for Paul's "experience" is total hearsay. We have nothing from "the 500." We have nothing from whichever women are claimed to have found the empty tomb (besides that, it says right in the story that they didn't even recognize the person claiming to be Jesus, assuming that part of the story is even true at all). We have nothing from "all the apostles."

The evidence that these appearances where real are:

1 at least some are multiple attested in other sources

Which ones? Where?

2 the creed is early, dated within 2 years after the crucifixion. (not enough time to claim myth or legend.

It certainly is enough time to have risen to legend status. Look at quickly Trump's cult following started believing that he actually won the election, and not only just that, all kinds of other completely crazy things like the dead Venezuelan President somehow helping Trump to win from beyond the grave.

I Corinthians was written down about 53-54 CE, according to historians, after many years of being passed on orally (and most likely embellished upon, like a game of Telephone). Which is plenty of time for a legend to develop and expand.

3 it explains why Paul and James where converted, and why the apostles had more faith (trust) in Jesus than ever before


4 it explains the fact that the apostles honestly and sincerely believed in the resurrection

Sincerely believing something is not an indication that the thing believed in is true. It just means you really believe it. Well, so what? Lots of people sincerely believe in all kinds of things that aren't true.

5 this was written within 20 years after the crucifixion, the witnesses where still alive , paul was in a position to know that really happened. And skeptics where is a position to refute Paul’s claims.

What witnesses? To what?

6 it explains the flourishment of the Christian movement .

So do lots of other things. Like it becoming the official state religion of the Roman Empire. Like wars. Like missionaries. Like forcing people to convert. By preaching. And on and on.

Now, I understand that you are a natrualists and that resurrection are impossible (or highly unlikely) under your own philosophical view………….. but why should I or anyone else grant naturalism? Can you show that naturalism is true beyond reasonable doubt?

If you don’t show that naturalism is true beyond reasonable doubt, then you have to consider seriously the possibility of events that defy natural laws

We've been over this, Leroy. Multiple times. And you're still trying to shift your burden of proof onto me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes that is the point……….. an observation would be evidence for more than 1 hypothesis.

Therefore the word “exlusivley” should be removed from the definition.

I proposed to change the word “exlusive” for “incising the probability”………….. But my suggestion was rejected.

The fact that you observed me buying dog food increases the probability that I have a dog, which is why this observation is “evidence” that I have a Dog.

Now you're just talking about a single observation.

 

[lukethethird]

This isn't about your inferiority complex, believers aren't better, just right and saved.

Right and saved from what, the belief in a God that will otherwise throw you into a lake of fire for not believing in the same God that will otherwise throw you into a lake of fire for not believing in a God that will....? and round and round we go, sounds like your beliefs go around in circles, good luck with that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Really? Well keep us posted. I am curious to see how you are going to do that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Whether something is evidence or not often depends upon context. Your hypothetical has not context. So as written, one would need to say one cannot really tell.

 

[Subduction Zone]

* People didn't claim to see Elvis, Michael or Typac resurrected from the dead, they don't believe they died! Like people believed Hitler didn't die rather a decoy was burned, that Hitler was living in South America or something. None of them said they would return from death or that they had the power to do so like Jesus.

Thomas replied, “My Lord and my God!”

Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Today disciples of Jesus benefit from the spirit of truth that is the conviction of truth that Jesus poured out upon all flesh. That accounts for the inexplicable faith that we have in Jesus. He is literally a spiritual presence.

The enemies of God, defiant anti-christs are clueless and dumfounded, being unaware of the presence of God.

So what? People that thought they saw Jesus might have thought that they must have been mistaken. There was a report of one of the rejected gospels of Jesus that did say that the person that carried Jesus's crossbar was mistaken for the man and he was the one that was crucified. Now that sounds rather unlikely to me. But it is actually more likely than the resurrection tale. And for those that were closest to him the odds of a post death hallucination was very very high. Only one or two of his apostles at the most were needed for the myth to start. We already know from Paul's own writings that all that he had were hallucinations. Was anyone besides just Peter needed for this myth to begin?

 

[Colt]

I don't use the word truth to apply to false ideas, insufficiently evidenced ideas, or unfalsifiable ideas.

That's how you describe being a critical thinker and strict empiricist as if he were missing some dimension because he doesn't join you in comforting flights of reverie - another variation of "I see further, you are a myopic materialist locked into scientism so you can't see my truths."

If you had truths, you could share them, and others would recognize them as such. But you don't so you can't.

Here's another, one of my favorites. This guy has atheists blindly bumping into walls making measurements. Gotta love the dig he takes at religion. You see, he's spiritual, and they're only religious, so his beliefs are authentic and theirs are derivative, but at least they're not like a robot vacuums with zero inner life like atheists.

View attachment 80476

I have no desire to control you. I'm correcting you. I don't expect it to modify your thinking, but hopefully it is useful to other skeptics making similar arguments. What I'm offering is not a different opinion, but another way to express it. What's different isn't the message. It's the demeanor. Look at how I write to you. Your truth is not my truth. If you had truth you could share it, but you don't and can't. Your faith is fine but don't call it reason. That's different than merely rebutting you.

Look at what I say to Leroy. He doesn't read what written to him. He engages in bad faith argumentation. He has no right to expect anything from other posters when he gives nothing.

Hey, if you have to be stuck with faith and a religion - words which seem to garner a lot of criticism - then everybody else does, too, right?

"I always flinch in embarrassment for the believer who trots out, 'Atheism is just another kind of faith,' because it's a tacit admission that taking claims on faith is a silly thing to do. When you've succumbed to arguing that the opposition is just as misguided as you are, it's time to take a step back and rethink your attitudes." - Amanda Marcotte

Did you want to address that? Why is she wrong in your opinion assuming that you believe that she is? Or maybe you agree. I do.

Already rebutted. You didn't see it, did you?

I do know it. You don't. And you seem to prefer your ignorance to easily acquired answers. I guess my last post referring to Helen Keller had no impact, either. It's unfathomable to me. Commonplace among the believers, but still unfathomable to me. I would not let you write about me like that without addressing it. Why? Self-respect. You might want to think about that.

If you had the ability to discern spiritual truth then those truths could be shared with you, but for now the unhatched egg of your human ego is simply incapable of perceiving truth.

 

[Colt]

So what? People that thought they saw Jesus might have thought that they must have been mistaken. There was a report of one of the rejected gospels of Jesus that did say that the person that carried Jesus's crossbar was mistaken for the man and he was the one that was crucified. Now that sounds rather unlikely to me. But it is actually more likely than the resurrection tale. And for those that were closest to him the odds of a post death hallucination was very very high. Only one or two of his apostles at the most were needed for the myth to start. We already know from Paul's own writings that all that he had were hallucinations. Was anyone besides just Peter needed for this myth to begin?

The women were the first to discover the resurrected Jesus while the boys were off hiding. They didn't believe the women any more than you do, at least not until they saw Jesus themselves and began getting reports of other sightings.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The women were the first to discover the resurrected Jesus while the boys were off hiding. They didn't believe the women any more than you do, at least not until they saw Jesus themselves and began getting reports of other sightings.

No, that is only the self contradicting stories in the Gospels. In reality we have no clue as to what happened. The most likely result of the crucifixion would be that Jesus was left up there, as were other victims of the Roman state. He was probably not taken down for a very long time.

 

[Colt]

No, that is only the self contradicting stories in the Gospels. In reality we have no clue as to what happened. The most likely result of the crucifixion would be that Jesus was left up there, as were other victims of the Roman state. He was probably not taken down for a very long time.

Thats your unsupported speculation and conjecture based on your anti-religious bias. If someone were going to perpetuate a written fraud then they would have done a much better job than the gospels.

 

[shunyadragon]

The women were the first to discover the resurrected Jesus while the boys were off hiding. They didn't believe the women any more than you do, at least not until they saw Jesus themselves and began getting reports of other sightings.

The same thing happened with Elvis. The gullible follow the gullible and see what they want to see. What about the claim of 500?

These are only claims in a compiled edited and redacted scripture over 100 years after the life of Jesus. No records from the 500 witnesses. apostles, or other witnesses at the time of the life of Jesus.

 

[Colt]

The same thing happened with Elvis. The gullible follow the gullible and see what they want to see. What about the claim of 500?

These are only claims in a compiled edited and redacted scripture over 100 years after the life of Jesus. No records from the 500 witnesses. apostles, or other witnesses at the time of the life of Jesus.

No actually Elvis never made the claim that he would be resurrected from the dead by his own volition. People who think they saw Elvis after he died were skeptics of his death to begin with.

By the same token skeptical theists favor other skeptics as they enjoy immunity from scrutiny about their own unproven beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thats your unsupported speculation and conjecture based on your anti-religious bias. If someone were going to perpetuate a written fraud then they would have done a much better job than the gospels.

Oh my! Irony meter alert! My post was far less speculative than yours. You are relying on a book of myths. I am relying on historians.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No actually Elvis never made the claim that he would be resurrected from the dead by his own volition. People who think they saw Elvis after he died were skeptics of his death to begin with.

By the same token skeptical theists favor other skeptics as they enjoy immunity from scrutiny about their own unproven beliefs.

What makes you think that Jesus did? If all that you have is the most magical gospel of all that is some pretty weak sauce.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you had the ability to discern spiritual truth then those truths could be shared with you, but for now the unhatched egg of your human ego is simply incapable of perceiving truth.

If you had any truth, you could write what it is. I already challenged you to do so, but this was your response - Bupkis. Diddly squat. Crickets.

The critically thinking empiricist responds to evidence. Empty claims when challenged to support them are only evidence that you cannot support them, which is always the case when they are wrong or "not even wrong." A correct idea cannot be falsified and an incorrect one cannot be confirmed. That's why we lean on this method to decide what is true about the world and why we reject claims that don't rise to the standards for belief. It's also what frustrates so many believers when they can't meet these standards and their claims are rejected. That's when apologists typically wheel out words like ego as you did. Myopic, materialistic, and a victim of scientism are others.

Thats your unsupported speculation and conjecture based on your anti-religious bias.

His claim was a fact. The Gospels contradict one another in a few places, which fact is easily demonstrated. One only need find mutually exclusive claims in them to know that one or both are wrong.

FYI, truth is the quality facts possess, facts being linguistic strings (sentences, paragraphs) that accurately and demonstrably map some aspect of reality.

No actually Elvis never made the claim that he would be resurrected from the dead by his own volition.

So what?

I doubt Jesus made any supernatural claims about himself, either. It didn't stop people from claiming that he did say such things or others from believing that he did. You don't invalidate an analogy merely by showing differences between the analogy and that analogized. You need to explain why that difference invalidates the comparison. Somebody mentions the boy who cried wolf as being analogous to something else, like Susie getting caught lying so often that she's no longer believed, and claiming that the analogy is inapt because Susie wasn't a boy and she said nothing about wolves. Again, so what if Elvis never claimed to be resurrected? It's an apt analogy for mistaking an apprehension for the sighting of a person thought to be dead.

 

[shunyadragon]

This isn't about your inferiority complex, believers aren't better, just right and saved.

Sounds more like a superiority complex on your part. Your right and everyone else is wrong.

 

[Colt]

Sounds more like a superiority complex on your part. Your right and everyone else is wrong.

I don't think so, my faith is a gift, belief in the resurrection is privilege of being born again of the spirit. I always say that its inexplicable, not a matter of intelligence or education. Those who knew Jesus in the flesh also lived by faith in his teaching, it was the Father that bore witness to the truth of his identity. After Pentecost they had the gift of the spirit. Today believers are blessed to have the spirit of Jesus within.

 

[Colt]

If you had any truth, you could write what it is. I already challenged you to do so, but this was your response - Bupkis. Diddly squat. Crickets.

The critically thinking empiricist responds to evidence. Empty claims when challenged to support them are only evidence that you cannot support them, which is always the case when they are wrong or "not even wrong." A correct idea cannot be falsified and an incorrect one cannot be confirmed. That's why we lean on this method to decide what is true about the world and why we reject claims that don't rise to the standards for belief. It's also what frustrates so many believers when they can't meet these standards and their claims are rejected. That's when apologists typically wheel out words like ego as you did. Myopic, materialistic, and a victim of scientism are others.

His claim was a fact. The Gospels contradict one another in a few places, which fact is easily demonstrated. One only need find mutually exclusive claims in them to know that one or both are wrong.

FYI, truth is the quality facts possess, facts being linguistic strings (sentences, paragraphs) that accurately and demonstrably map some aspect of reality.

So what?

I doubt Jesus made any supernatural claims about himself, either. It didn't stop people from claiming that he did say such things or others from believing that he did. You don't invalidate an analogy merely by showing differences between the analogy and that analogized. You need to explain why that difference invalidates the comparison. Somebody mentions the boy who cried wolf as being analogous to something else, like Susie getting caught lying so often that she's no longer believed, and claiming that the analogy is inapt because Susie wasn't a boy and she said nothing about wolves. Again, so what if Elvis never claimed to be resurrected? It's an apt analogy for mistaking an apprehension for the sighting of a person thought to be dead.

You doubt a lot of things, that doesn't change what's true. Materialist claim that everything they think, believe or feel was first tested in a lab! Thats BS!

"Those who would invent a religion without God are like those who would gather fruit without trees, have children without parents. You cannot have effects without causes; only the I AM is causeless. The fact of religious experience implies God, and such a God of personal experience must be a personal Deity. You cannot pray to a chemical formula, supplicate a mathematical equation, worship a hypothesis, confide in a postulate, commune with a process, serve an abstraction, or hold loving fellowship with a law.

102:7.4 (1126.4) True, many apparently religious traits can grow out of nonreligious roots. Man can, intellectually, deny God and yet be morally good, loyal, filial, honest, and even idealistic. Man may graft many purely humanistic branches onto his basic spiritual nature and thus apparently prove his contentions in behalf of a godless religion, but such an experience is devoid of survival values, God-knowingness and God-ascension. In such a mortal experience only social fruits are forthcoming, not spiritual. The graft determines the nature of the fruit, notwithstanding that the living sustenance is drawn from the roots of original divine endowment of both mind and spirit.

102:7.5 (1126.5) The intellectual earmark of religion is certainty; the philosophical characteristic is consistency; the social fruits are love and service. UB 1955