Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[Subduction Zone]

Like Elvis.

Costello or Presley?

 

[leroy]

The Methodological Naturalist view and academic historical view of the supernatural are the criteria that determine there is no objectively verifiable evidence for supernatural events as previously defined. Therefore there is no justification to believe that the claim of resurrection is true other than a basis of subjective religious belief.


The resurrection is based on the extraordinary claim that the supernatural event of the resurrection is true. These claims have never been supported by objectively verifiable evidence by either scientific or historical standards. Standard historical standards are provided by an Oxford University source. See post #1,115.

There are no contemporary independent sources from the 500+ witnesses during the life of Jesus. Actually, no independent primary source for the life of Jesus exists during his lifetime.

You have failed to respond and failed to respond to post #1,115 concerning your false claim that the claim of resurrection meets academic historical standards. You also made a false claim that most historians support that the resurrection is true, which is false.

Please respond to the fact that there are no independent witnesses outside the NT to the life of Jesus or the resurrection. Also, Paul never met Jesus.

you fail to adrees my post

1 provide a hypothesis (explain and develope the hypothesis)} "The Methodological Naturalist view " is not a hypotheis

2 expalin why is that hypothesis better according to the criteria presented in the OP............

Please respond to the fact that there are no independent witnesses outside the NT to the life of Jesus or the resurrection. Also, Paul never met Jesus.

We can´t really know, but Granted for the sake of this thread, we don’t have documents form witnesses for Jesus life nor the resurrection, (except form Paul who was a witness of the resurrection, or an event that he interpreted as being the resurrection)

And granted Paul never met Jesus when he was alive, (well we can´t really know)

 

[leroy]

It's made up.
The authors were mistaken.
The authors had an agenda.
The authors were just passing on stories they heard from other people.
There was a guy named Jesus that people admired and talked about and over time and numerous oral transmissions of stories about him became embellished, added onto, exagerrated, etc. Like Elvis. Or Trump.

Ok pick of those hypothesis, explain and develop the hypothesis and show that it is a better alternative than the resurrection using the criteria from the OP

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok pick of those hypothesis, explain and develop the hypothesis and show that it is a better alternative than the resurrection using the criteria from the OP

You failed at your burden of proof. You are in no position to make any demands of others.


One has to demonstrate that one is willing to be an honest interlocutor to make demands.

 

[leroy]

"If I tell you a story I heard from someone else, that's called hearsay and that is what we are dealing with in the passage you quoted. Just read it for yourself." ...

It's written in the third person, for starters. And secondly, the passage says as much right at the beginning. My objective method is just to read the passage you provided:


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."


So is Harry Potter. And Spiderman. And Scientology.

Other sources from within the Bible?
So ... for the Bible tells me so?

What data?

It isn't.

Nope, not different rules. The. Same. Rules.
You're the one wanting different rules for your supernatural claims.

Nope.

Nope.

It's made up.
The authors were mistaken.
The authors had an agenda.
The authors were just passing on stories they heard from other people.
There was a guy named Jesus that people admired and talked about and over time and numerous oral transmissions of stories about him became embellished, added onto, exagerrated, etc. Like Elvis. Or Trump.

That is ok, is that s what you mean by hearsay, then your hearsay accusations are valid………….. perhaps it is just me, (given that English is not my first language) but I thought that hearsay was defined as “unsupported rumors” or something like that

If hearsay simply means “written by a non-witness” then sure I agree that the bible is mostly hearsay, it is just that it is not a big of deal (Josephus, Tacitus, Plutarch, etc. would also count as hearsay under your definition, but we still trust those sources.)

Other sources from within the Bible?
So ... for the Bible tells me so?

Again most historians would accept any claim mentioned in 2 sources (say Paul and Mark) they would only make an exception with claims that have theological implications that they don’t like.

This is a testable and falsifiable claim; all you have to do is provide an example of an event reported by Paul and Mark that is not accepted by most historians. You won’t find any, (except for those events that have theological implications)

 

[Subduction Zone]

you fail to adrees my post

1 provide a hypothesis (explain and develope the hypothesis)} "The Methodological Naturalist view " is not a hypotheis

2 expalin why is that hypothesis better according to the criteria presented in the OP............





We can´t really know, but Granted for the sake of this thread, we don’t have documents form witnesses for Jesus life nor the resurrection, (except form Paul who was a witness of the resurrection, or an event that he interpreted as being the resurrection)

And granted Paul never met Jesus when he was alive, (well we can´t really know)

Once again, there is no need for him to do so. All he needed to do was to explain how your claims have failed. And I do not think at this point he even needed to do that. Fix your claims and then you might be able to make demands. Showing how your arguments fail means that you cannot claim to have a rational belief.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ok pick of those hypothesis, explain and develop the hypothesis and show that it is a better alternative than the resurrection using the criteria from the OP

Not necessary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is ok, is that s what you mean by hearsay, then your hearsay accusations are valid………….. perhaps it is just me, (given that English is not my first language) but I thought that hearsay was defined as “unsupported rumors” or something like that

Which what they were. Paul saying "because I said so" makes them unsupported rumors. Do you not understand the Canadian girlfriend example? If you do not understand an argument there is no shame in admitting it. But if you say nothing about it that is the same as you accepting it and yet plowing ahead with your broken logic regardless of that.

If hearsay simply means “written by a non-witness” then sure I agree that the bible is mostly hearsay, it is just that it is not a big of deal (Josephus, Tacitus, Plutarch, etc. would also count as hearsay under your definition, but we still trust those sources.)

I am not a student of Josephus, but I do believe that he shows signs of actually researching his claims rather than relying simply on a "because I said so". If you want to claim that Josephus or others did that you would have to show how by his writings. That would be quite the task. In comparison the records we have from Paul are rather limited. Almost half of the works of Paul are thought to have not been written by him with varying degrees of certainty. You have seven "books" of the Bible at the most that are definitely written by him. Whereas Josephus was a rather prolific writer and many of his claims can be checked against truly independent sources (remember that the Bible underwent a homogenization event where books that did not toe the party line were rejected or even destroyed).

Again most historians would accept any claim mentioned in 2 sources (say Paul and Mark) they would only make an exception with claims that have theological implications that they don’t like.

This is only a claim of yours that you have never justified. I could say that most historians would disagree with your interpretation of their standards. I could probably support that claim. But there is no need for me to do so since you have never supported this claim of yours.

This is a testable and falsifiable claim; all you have to do is provide an example of an event reported by Paul and Mark that is not accepted by most historians. You won’t find any, (except for those events that have theological implications)

It depends upon how you define that. Would they accept that Paul or the author of Mark believed the stories in them. Yes, but so what? If you mean any of the claims of magic in them? They would reject those just as they reject claims of magic from other sources. You were given examples of this, there is no need to do so again.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is ok, is that s what you mean by hearsay, then your hearsay accusations are valid………….. perhaps it is just me, (given that English is not my first language) but I thought that hearsay was defined as “unsupported rumors” or something like that

If hearsay simply means “written by a non-witness” then sure I agree that the bible is mostly hearsay, it is just that it is not a big of deal (Josephus, Tacitus, Plutarch, etc. would also count as hearsay under your definition, but we still trust those sources.)

Again most historians would accept any claim mentioned in 2 sources (say Paul and Mark) they would only make an exception with claims that have theological implications that they don’t like.

No, they wouldn't. And don't. We've already been over this.

hearsay​

[ heer-sey ]SHOW IPA

noun

1. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge:I pay no attention to hearsay.
2. an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor:a malicious hearsay.

adjective

1. of, relating to, or characterized by hearsay:hearsay knowledge;a hearsay report.

Hearsay Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

Hearsay definition, unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay. See more.

www.dictionary.com

​

This is a testable and falsifiable claim; all you have to do is provide an example of an event reported by Paul and Mark that is not accepted by most historians. You won’t find any, (except for those events that have theological implications)

A person was resurrected from the dead.
"The 500" witnessed the resurrection of a dead person.
Heaven being torn open and a spirit descending from it and a voice coming out of it
Jesus driving out demons from people

 

[leroy]

Which what they were. Paul saying "because I said so" makes them unsupported rumors. Do you not understand the Canadian girlfriend example? If you do not understand an argument there is no shame in admitting it. But if you say nothing about it that is the same as you accepting it and yet plowing ahead with your broken logic regardless of that.


I am not a student of Josephus, but I do believe that he shows signs of actually researching his claims rather than relying simply on a "because I said so". If you want to claim that Josephus or others did that you would have to show how by his writings. That would be quite the task. In comparison the records we have from Paul are rather limited. Almost half of the works of Paul are thought to have not been written by him with varying degrees of certainty. You have seven "books" of the Bible at the most that are definitely written by him. Whereas Josephus was a rather prolific writer and many of his claims can be checked against truly independent sources (remember that the Bible underwent a homogenization event where books that did not toe the party line were rejected or even destroyed).


This is only a claim of yours that you have never justified. I could say that most historians would disagree with your interpretation of their standards. I could probably support that claim. But there is no need for me to do so since you have never supported this claim of yours.

It depends upon how you define that. Would they accept that Paul or the author of Mark believed the stories in them. Yes, but so what? If you mean any of the claims of magic in them? They would reject those just as they reject claims of magic from other sources. You were given examples of this, there is no need to do so again.

What is the point of quoting my comments, if you are not addressing my points?

 

[leroy]

leroy said:
Ok pick of those hypothesis, explain and develop the hypothesis and show that it is a better alternative than the resurrection using the criteria from the OP

Not necessary.

Why not? That is the intent of the OP

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is the point of quoting my comments, if you are not addressing my points?

They were addressed. When it is pointed out that your demands are baseless that is addressing them. Once again because you do not like the answers given to you you ignore them. That is why so many tire of you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why not? That is the intent of the OP

Explained multiple times by multiple posters.

 

[leroy]

No, they wouldn't. And don't. We've already been over this.

hearsay​

[ heer-sey ]SHOW IPA

noun

1. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge:I pay no attention to hearsay.
2. an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor:a malicious hearsay.

adjective

1. of, relating to, or characterized by hearsay:hearsay knowledge;a hearsay report.

Hearsay Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

Hearsay definition, unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay. See more.

www.dictionary.com

​

​

​

that is the reason, why I will ingore things that are unrelated to the OP…………………. all you did was change the defection of hearsay “unverified” was not part of your original definition. And I don’t want another semantic game

the OP is expecting you to provide an alternative hypothesis, develop it, and explain why is it better than the resurrection………….if you are not going to do that, then why are you even participating in this thread?


But just for your own reflection………… why would Paul rely on “unverified rumors” if he knew Petter, James, and atleast some of the aposoles and some of the 500s?

I mean he knew people form that list of………. Why would he rely on a random rumor, if he could have asked Peter directly about his experience?

A person was resurrected from the dead.
"The 500" witnessed the resurrection of a dead person.
Heaven being torn open and a spirit descending from it and a voice coming out of it
Jesus driving out demons from people

My challenge was

1 find a claim that is in 2 or more sources from the NT (say Paul and Mark, or John and L, or Q and Paul ETC.)

2 That has no “magic” nor miracles, nor anything that has theological implications

3 that is not accepted by the majority of historians (or relevant scholars)

 

[shunyadragon]

What is the point of quoting my comments, if you are not addressing my points?

you are making claims of witnesses that were not witnesses of a supernatural event that cannot be historically confirmed by academic standards.

Those, like you, who believe that the gospel authors are witnesses or in some way accurate do so based on faith not the evidence.

paul never met Jesus and the references in the gospels are more than 50 years after the life of Jesus.

 

[leroy]

you are making claims of witnesses that were not witnesses of a supernatural event that cannot be historically confirmed by academic standards.

Those, like you, who believe that the gospel authors are witnesses or in some way accurate do so based on faith not the evidence.

paul never met Jesus and the references in the gospels are more than 50 years after the life of Jesus.

I think that the gosples and acts are reliable because most of the verifiable information in these documents is true.

I think that Paul is reliable mainly because he knew the apostles , he knew the witnesses



So it is not by faith

If your standards are “only sources written by witnesses are acceptable” then what can I say, your standards are stronger than mine……… just make sure to be consistent and reject everything that doesn’t meet such standard

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think that the gosples and acts are reliable because most of the verifiable information in these documents is true.

By that standard the Harry Potter stories are true.

I think that Paul is reliable mainly because he knew the apostles , he knew the witnesses

No, he only seems to have known Peter and maybe James. Worse yet he thought that he knew more than Peter. That puts him into the territory of unreliable.

So it is not by faith

Sorry, but you have no conclusions drawn using critical thinking. Your poor arguments refute this claim.

If your standards are “only sources written by witnesses are acceptable” then what can I say, your standards are stronger than mine……… just make sure to be consistent and reject everything that doesn’t meet such standard

And we are back to strawman arguments

 

[leroy]

By that standard the Harry Potter stories are true.

Aren’t you tired of repeating the same type of mistakes over and over and over again? …………………. Do you honestly and sincerely think that you made a good argument or a good point?

But I´ll take your tacit addmtion that you agree on that most of the verifiable claims made in the gospels are true

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aren’t you tired of repeating the same type of mistakes over and over and over again? …………………. Do you honestly and sincerely think that you made a good argument or a good point?

But I´ll take your tacit addmtion that you agree on that most of the verifiable claims made in the gospels are true

Projection . That argument does not work when you are the one that has been refuted. In fact right now it does appear that you are lying instead of debating properly. You are the one that keeps complaining. You have been offered solutions but you never accept them.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think that the gosples and acts are reliable because most of the verifiable information in these documents is true.

I think that Paul is reliable mainly because he knew the apostles , he knew the witnesses



So it is not by faith

Based on the fact that it involves a supernatural event it is by definition based on faith.

If your standards are “only sources written by witnesses are acceptable” then what can I say, your standards are stronger than mine……… just make sure to be consistent and reject everything that doesn’t meet such standard

As far as history goes I stick with the Oxford University standards for historical events, records, people, and times things occur. Of course, some events, people, and time frames of the Bible are confirmed by multiple sources, archaeology, and science, but many are not.

As far as the nature of our physical existence I go with objectively verifiable evidence and Methodological Naturalism.

These are not my standards.