Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[Quagmire]

First ...

3.1.2 Arguments that miracle claims could never be rationally believed​

The principal argument against the rational credibility of miracle claims derives from Hume. “A miracle,” he writes,

is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. (Hume 1748/2000: 86–87

The problem I see with Hume's arguments:

"A miracle . .

. . .is a violation of the laws of nature

Only in so far as we understand those laws. And as much as our understanding is ever limited, we're hardly qualified to declare what is or isn't a violation thereof.

. . . and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws

This, IMO, is just silly. All of our experiences are subjective, and our capacity to experience our reality changes and grows as our technology changes and grows and as new theories are tried and tested.

 

[bchalloner]

You think the apostles and the disciples were lying when they say they saw Jesus? There's an old argument that says, 'who would die for a lie' as most of the apostles and many of the disciples did? I think that's probably pushing skepticism too far, but who knows.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But maybe it's not as unlikely as you think to believe that some so called hallucinations are true visions of God. Seers have been around since Biblical times. I think the resurrection story of Jesus is a clear example of visions, which need not be false or made up per se. Obviously they could be made up, fabrications of our minds, or maybe as people in Biblical times believed, visions of the divine. I have no doubt they saw Jesus. But what does that mean? That has to be clarified. The believer and unbeliever draw from the same well of evidence (the Gospels). I think the Gospels are reliable eyewitness accounts, in that I have no reason to believe the apostles and Jesus's disciples were lying when they say they saw him. But did they fabricate it all in their minds or were those visions somehow true? I mean really, who among mortals can say?

But once again, how can you tell if something is a vision of God?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There no law in science that says dead people stay dead.


You haven't gave any explanation




Ok we have a "because I say so" argument

Wow! Somebody did not learn even elementary school level biology.

Just because you do not understand an argument does not make it a "Because I said so " argument.

 

[bchalloner]

Good question. I'm not sure. I know there are the prophecies of Daniel - visions of the end of times that have to be interpreted, but are supposedly about real world events that will come true. So maybe a prophetic vision that comes true could safely be said to come from God. Visions from God are said to be good, and visions from Satan are evil. This is something a seer might be able to tell. But is there proof for the outside observer? Maybe not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good question. I'm not sure. I know there are the prophecies of Daniel - visions of the end of times that have to be interpreted, but are supposedly about real world events that will come true. So maybe a prophetic vision that comes true could safely be said to come from God. Visions from God are said to be good, and visions from Satan are evil. This is something a seer might be able to tell. But is there proof for the outside observer? Maybe not.

You should read up on when Daniel was written and by whom.

 

[bchalloner]

Back in Biblical times there prophets who were said to be true and those who were said to be false. A true prophet was worth his weight in gold, because he communicated the mysteries and insights of God to Israel. The false prophet would just lead people astray. How could you tell the difference? It pays to know not just what's good to you, but what's good for you. True prophets were wise - they studied nature and the signs of the times and made honest, able predictions. False prophets just made it up or told you what you wanted to hear. Just some ideas.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Back in Biblical times there prophets who were said to be true and those who were said to be false. A true prophet was worth his weight in gold, because he communicated the mysteries and insights of God to Israel. The false prophet would just lead people astray. How could you tell the difference? It pays to know not just what's good to you, but what's good for you. True prophets were wise - they studied nature and the signs of the times and made honest, able predictions. False prophets just made it up or told you what you wanted to hear. Just some ideas.

And every religion has that sort of claim. I do not see any "true prophets" in the Bible. If you had looked into when Daniel was written some of it was written as history as if Daniel made some of those prophecies. A lot of it was written in roughly 164 BC not by Daniel himself:

Apocalypticism Explained | Apocalypse! FRONTLINE | PBS

www.pbs.org

It is a clear error to read the Bible too literally. That is the fastest road to refutation of the Bible.. There may be some valid messages in it, but those are lost when one makes the mistake of making a false idol of the Bible.

 

[Thrillobyte]

You think the apostles and the disciples were lying when they say they saw Jesus? There's an old argument that says, 'who would die for a lie' as most of the apostles and many of the disciples did? I think that's probably pushing skepticism too far, but who knows.

Please show evidence, not church traditions, that all the apostles save one--hell, ANY of the apostles died for their faith.

 

[ppp]

You might not have heard of the term, Pseudepigrapha--which is just a fancy word for forged. What scholars agree on is that 7 of the 12 epistles were written by the same person because they have the same writing styles whereas the other 5 don't

Accepted. I said that. I just didnt take the long way around.

but it still doesn't offer irrefutable proof it was someone named Paul who wrote them.

Rejected.
Irrefutable proof is not a historical standard for accepting that someone lived. Never has been. [

Scholars just assume it was Paul because for 2000 years all 12 were attributed to Paul

Rejected.
Scholars assume conclude that Paul lived because of his writings, references by contemporaries and near contemporaries, his writing fits the historical context for the years that ye was purported to have lived, and because of his historical influence. This is the same standard that we use for establishing the existence of Plato. Or anyone else from antiquity.

One of the biggest Roman trials of the era and there isn't even a mention of the trial from Tacitus, much less a trial record itself????????

Rejected. You're going to have to some work to make that a relavent complaint.

The earliest copies of the epistles themselves don't start appearing until the 4th-5th centuries--roughly 350 years at the earliest after they were supposedly written

Rejected.
Earliest copy is P46 (c. 175–225 AD):

I mean who in the early church even mentions all the epistles believed written by Paul: NOBODY.

Rejected. Clement, Ignatius , Polycarp, Marcione and the Author of Luke/Acts

No proof of their authorship

Rejected.
The consensusof secular and religious is that Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon were written by Paul.

no proof of when they were written

Rejected.
Clement caps it at 96 AD. And again, the consensus of secular and religious is against you.

no evidence Paul even lived.

Rejected
Letters and references are evidence. The scholarly consensus is evidence. You might argue that they are insufficient evidence, but please refrain from hyperbole.

If you want to take all this on blind faith be my guest.

Blind faith would be without evidence. We have evidence that Paul was a real person who lived in the first century.

I sure wouldn't throw my life away on such a gigantic question mark.

I think you are mkaing some very hasty and ungenerous assumptions about me.

 

[leroy]

Wow! Somebody did not learn even elementary school level biology.

Just because you do not understand an argument does not make it a "Because I said so " argument.

So far your argument is:

Natural hypothesis are always better than supernatural hypothesis

how do you know (I asked)

because supernatural events dont excist.

How do you know that? (I asked)

Because for any pratical purpose they dont excist.


Do you honestly expect anyone to take you serously with such childish responses?

Wow! Somebody did not learn even elementary school level biology.

Your elemtary school teacher lied to you, there is no such law.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why is fiction a better explanation?

Fiction is most likely correct. That judgment is based in a lifetime of experience and learning which things occur commonly and which are rare. People fabricate stories continuously. The other options either are less likely because they occur less commonly or because they are not know to occur at all.

There no law in science that says dead people stay dead.

Life is a highly ordered (low entropy), far from equilibrium state that channels and dissipates energy. It is an emergent phenomenon dependent on molecules of a specific type being arranged in a specific way, which requires energy and intact subcellular machinery to assemble new cells. Death allows that to begin reversing and a return to disorder and equilibrium as tissues and macromolecules begin decomposing. There is no path from death to life that doesn't require magic even if you infuse a corpse with energy. Life only comes from nature to the best of our knowledge, and nature can't resurrect the dead without breaking a corpse down into its constituent chemicals and building a new life from them just as it can't unburn paper. You need to grow a new tree from the ashes along with more matter and energy, and make paper from that. But you know all of that or should.

Natural hypothesis are always better than supernatural hypothesis

Naturalistic hypotheses are preferred because they are more parsimonious. They only require that nature exists, whereas supernatural explanations require the existence of both nature and the supernatural. Nature is known to exist, but not the supernatural.

There's an old argument that says, 'who would die for a lie' as most of the apostles and many of the disciples did?

Everybody who died at Heaven's Gate died for believing a lie about hitchhiking onto a comet. Every American soldier who has died in uniform since 1945 has died for a lie about fighting for freedom or to protect the American people. Religious martyrs are no less gullible. Look at how many died at Jonestown and Waco for their faith in gods and false prophets.

 

[bchalloner]

You have a point there about that sometimes people will die for a lie. But if you look at the story of Jesus, it's not a bad lie, like heaven's gate. Jesus was a good guy who had many important things to say to his people, like love God and your neighbor. He also died for our sins on the cross, the church tells us, and so we are freed from the bondage of sin and death. If you follow the doctrine of the church, it's sound doctrine. We are all guilty of sin, and without a way out, we will perish in our sins. Jesus is the way out. He paid the penalty for our sins, the way a spotless lamb would in the old testament system. I know that animal sacrifice, and even human sacrifice, raises eyebrows. But it's sound (logically consistent) and, I dunno, appealing if you want to spend an eternity with God and not roast in hellfire.

 

[ppp]

You have a point there about that sometimes people will die for a lie. But if you look at the story of Jesus, it's not a bad lie, like heaven's gate. Jesus was a good guy who had many important things to say to his people, like love God and your neighbor. He also died for our sins on the cross, the church tells us, and so we are freed from the bondage of sin and death. If you follow the doctrine of the church, it's sound doctrine. We are all guilty of sin, and without a way out, we will perish in our sins. Jesus is the way out. He paid the penalty for our sins, the way a spotless lamb would in the old testament system. I know that animal sacrifice, and even human sacrifice, raises eyebrows. But it's sound (logically consistent) and, I dunno, appealing if you want to spend an eternity with God and not roast in hellfire.

Anyone who would build a system with a hellfire option is not a good guy.

 

[bchalloner]

Yea, that's an old atheist argument. Hard to refute. No one likes the idea of hell. But there's something about it that keeps you out of trouble. If you think you're going to burn in fire for doing something wrong, it stops you from doing it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So far your argument is:

Natural hypothesis are always better than supernatural hypothesis

how do you know (I asked)

because supernatural events dont excist.

How do you know that? (I asked)

Because for any pratical purpose they dont excist.


Do you honestly expect anyone to take you serously with such childish responses?




Your elemtary school teacher lied to you, there is no such law.

Nope, you are strawmanning again.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Who knows.

So too in the case of the daoine sidhe depending, of course, on what one means by "knows." I suspect that yours is a rather flexible definition.

Luckelly none of the arguments in the OP depends on mathew 27,50-53 being true.

Having available such an out available may well be luck; stooping to use is simply disingenuous posturing.

 

[ppp]

Yea, that's an old atheist argument.

It's an old Christian argument. Nearly a third of y'all reject eternal torture.

Hard to refute. No one likes the idea of hell.

Perhaps I wasn't clear.I don't like okra. I don't like baseball. I am not talking about mere likes. Any being who would construct a hellfire is immoral.

If you think you're going to burn in fire for doing something wrong, it stops you from doing it

It does not. Christians do and have done heinous things on a daily basis. Both as individuals and in groups as Christian institutions.

Do not take this as saying that y'all have only done evil. Many Christians have done many, many good things. But I see no evidence that being a Christian has any significant impact on preventing bad behavior. In fact, it encourages adherents to adhere to it's immoral tenets.

Such as excusing the eternal torture of thinking beings.

 

[Trailblazer]

I have never understood the relevance of point 3 to such discussions. Surely seeing a ghost or having a vision has no connection to a physical resurrection however real it may seem.

True, and the disciples dis not necessarily see the 'physical body' of Jesus after he allegedly rose from the dead. It could very well have been the spiritual body of Jesus that they saw that looked like His physical body.

Christians will often cite Luke in an attempt to prove that Jesus rose physically, but my answer to that is if Jesus could do miracles then Jesus could easily make his hands and feet appear and even feel physical. So this is no proof that Jesus rose physically.

Luke.24 Verses 36 to 43​

[36] And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
[37] But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
[38] And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
[39] Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
[40] And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
[41] And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
[42] And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
[43] And he took it, and did eat before them.

 

[Trailblazer]

Any being who would construct a hellfire is immoral.

Then it's a good thing God never constructed it. If was rather constructed by Christian doctrines.