Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am not interested in playing your silly games

I've lost interest in what you want. And, no, you can't walk away from this. There's nothing in it for you unless you enjoy being thought of and talked to like this. And as I've explained, there's nothing in your message for me. My interest is not in what you say, but why you keep saying it when it so obviously isn't working for you. You convince nobody and alienate most posters. That's your game, and you're losing.

Again that is a lie (another lie) since the very moment you made that commet I asked you to develop and to explain with detail for one of those hypothesis.

I gave you everything I had to say on the subject. No further development was possible that a list of logically possible explanations for those scripture and ordering the possibilities from most to least likely. There is nothing more to be said on the matter. If you needed clarification of what those simple English words meant, you needed to seek it then. That's part of my "silly game," too. I expect you to do your part or it's over.

Put yourself in to my shoes. You have a long history of lying and making stuff up in many of our conversations, do you honestly think that I am that stupxd to think that things would have been different ?

Leroy, you reveal that you have no idea what my words mean. I don't lie because why would I? I live my life and speak my thoughts with integrity. I do and say what I think is right, and never need to pretend about anything except maybe how attractive somebody's child is. But there is nothing I believe that I couldn't say to you and nothing I don't believe that I have any reason to say to you. Do you not ever encounter such people? Just life an upright an internally consistent (coherent) life, which is what integrity means - doing what you say and saying what you do.

And no, I don't expect anything different from you but a steady diet of misunderstanding and confusion.

Regarding whether I think you're stupid, answer me this: What are the manifestations of stupidity that allow one to decide when he is in its presence? And how smart was asking that question in this context?

Not related to this discussion, but there was a scene in the movie My Little Chickadee in which Mae West is swaggering seductively as she does in a courtroom, and the judge asks her if she's trying to show contempt for the court. To paraphrase, "No, your honor. I'm doing my damnedest to conceal it."

Now ask me what I think about being called a liar by a person as confused as you. As you must know by now, I don't respect your opinion or your ability to interpret evidence or understand language, so I'm not insulted, but you have insulted yourself and undermined YOUR integrity. You might want to mind your mouth and beware your talk a little more.

How do you like the shoes you've put yourself in? Having fun? Is this satisfying and illuminating for you? Is this what you were hoping for? Of course not, but you don't have a choice if you can't respond to evidence and adapt accordingly, and you apparently can't.

Here's some sage advice, Leroy: "So we will share this road we walk and mind our mouths and beware our talk"

 

[Subduction Zone]

The point if I grant that Paul had this mental illness and that he had an hallucination, that still doesn’t explain why did Paul concluded physical resurrection rather “it was a spirit” as most people conclude when they see the dead

Where did Paul ever assume physical resurrection? I have not seen that in any of his writings. You are adding something to Paul's writings based upon your personal beliefs. All of his sightings were "visons". Also known as halucinations.

,ok but luckelly some people had made studies on the subject , nobody concludes "physical resurection" when they have a hallucination

How do you know? You need to support that. What do you think that all of the Elvis sighter saw? I am sure that some will have claimed to have shaken his hand.

And nothing, I am just answering to your question, why are you asking questions if they are not relevant?

From my experience the answers to you are relevant. Your objections very often are not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They're documented by Robert Eisenman in his book "James the Brother of Jesus".

He uses sources like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, the Apostolic Constitutions, Eusebius, the two James Apocalypses from Nag Hammadi, the Western Text of Acts and the Slavonic Josephus.

Interesting. I have no easy way to check his work, but it appears that Eisenman totally rejected magical Jesus. He seems to think that he was a religious leader that was killed by the Romans and that he stayed dead. Do I have that right?

 

[Ebionite]

Interesting. I have no easy way to check his work, but it appears that Eisenman totally rejected magical Jesus. He seems to think that he was a religious leader that was killed by the Romans and that he stayed dead. Do I have that right?

He dedicates his book to martyrs of the Jewish war, so that's probably a reasonable take.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He dedicates his book to martyrs of the Jewish war, so that's probably a reasonable take.

It does not seem to be an unreasonable belief. But this thread is about magical Jesus and how resurrection is a reasonable belief. You may be able to tell that I do not think that the resurrection claim is reasonable or rational.

 

[Ebionite]

It does not seem to be an unreasonable belief. But this thread is about magical Jesus and how resurrection is a reasonable belief. You may be able to tell that I do not think that the resurrection claim is reasonable or rational.

IMO resurrection per se isn't irrational, but the resurrection of Jesus was illusory because of the prophetic context.

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt.
Daniel 12:2

 

[leroy]

I've lost interest in what you want. And, no, you can't walk away from this. There's nothing in it for you unless you enjoy being thought of and talked to like this. And as I've explained, there's nothing in your message for me. My interest is not in what you say, but why you keep saying it when it so obviously isn't working for you. You convince nobody and alienate most posters. That's your game, and you're losing.

I gave you everything I had to say on the subject. No further development was possible that a list of logically possible explanations for those scripture and ordering the possibilities from most to least likely. There is nothing more to be said on the matter. If you needed clarification of what those simple English words meant, you needed to seek it then. That's part of my "silly game," too. I expect you to do your part or it's over.

Leroy, you reveal that you have no idea what my words mean. I don't lie because why would I? I live my life and speak my thoughts with integrity. I do and say what I think is right, and never need to pretend about anything except maybe how attractive somebody's child is. But there is nothing I believe that I couldn't say to you and nothing I don't believe that I have any reason to say to you. Do you not ever encounter such people? Just life an upright an internally consistent (coherent) life, which is what integrity means - doing what you say and saying what you do.

And no, I don't expect anything different from you but a steady diet of misunderstanding and confusion.

Regarding whether I think you're stupid, answer me this: What are the manifestations of stupidity that allow one to decide when he is in its presence? And how smart was asking that question in this context?

Not related to this discussion, but there was a scene in the movie My Little Chickadee in which Mae West is swaggering seductively as she does in a courtroom, and the judge asks her if she's trying to show contempt for the court. To paraphrase, "No, your honor. I'm doing my damnedest to conceal it."

Now ask me what I think about being called a liar by a person as confused as you. As you must know by now, I don't respect your opinion or your ability to interpret evidence or understand language, so I'm not insulted, but you have insulted yourself and undermined YOUR integrity. You might want to mind your mouth and beware your talk a little more.

How do you like the shoes you've put yourself in? Having fun? Is this satisfying and illuminating for you? Is this what you were hoping for? Of course not, but you don't have a choice if you can't respond to evidence and adapt accordingly, and you apparently can't.

Here's some sage advice, Leroy: "So we will share this road we walk and mind our mouths and beware our talk"

Well most honest people would have preferred to show that they are not lying, rather than inventing excuses.

 

[leroy]

Where did Paul ever assume physical resurrection? I have not seen that in any of his writings. You are adding something to Paul's writings based upon your personal beliefs. All of his sightings were "visons". Also known as halucinations.

This is why I keep asking you and your friends to develop and explain your hypothesis.

If you want to argue that Paul never proclaimed a physical resurrection then that would be a completely different hypothesis, from the one that I am addressing.

How do you know? You need to support that. What do you think that all of the Elvis sighter saw? I am sure that some will have claimed to have shaken his hand.

Thanks for that support for my argument, many people “saw” Elvis, but nobody concluded that Elvis resurrected…………. That is simply my point……… when people saw someone that is supposed to be dead, people don’t ‘conclude “resurrection”

}

 

[Brian2]

Must be fun with you in court.

Some people just refuse to believe any evidence about the supernatural.
So the reliability of evidence in some cases is a matter of opinion.

 

[Brian2]

To wear someone down one has to be right at least part of the time I doubt if you can find even one of his arguments that has not been thoroughly refuted.

I don't know about his arguments but I know from experience with you and others, that people can be thoroughly wrong and still keep saying they are right and can wear their oponent down that way.
Without an unbiased adjudicator, opinion and dogged hard headedness can win the day, or at least think they have won the day.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I did not say that the problems have been fixed, I said that He decided to fix the problems.

God is like the rancher who wants to feed the cows after they are all dead.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know about his arguments but I know from experience with you and others, that people can be thoroughly wrong and still keep saying they are right and can wear their oponent down that way.
Without an unbiased adjudicator, opinion and dogged hard headedness can win the day, or at least think they have won the day.

That is possible. But we have shown time and time again how we are not the one that is wrong. It is too bad that you did not follow the arguments.

You could always give the topic a shot. See if you can make a proper argument for the resurrection of Jesus being historical without making atrocious errors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is why I keep asking you and your friends to develop and explain your hypothesis.

If you want to argue that Paul never proclaimed a physical resurrection then that would be a completely different hypothesis, from the one that I am addressing.

We do not really need to do that at all. All that we have to show is the flaws in your version. And until you own up to your errors you are in no position to demand anything of others. To make demands one has to be an honest interlocutor. Also people did so You did not listen when they did that. That frees the from doing so again.

Thanks for that support for my argument, many people “saw” Elvis, but nobody concluded that Elvis resurrected…………. That is simply my point……… when people saw someone that is supposed to be dead, people don’t ‘conclude “resurrection”

That does not support your argument. You are getting hung up over a word. By focusing on a word instead of the process you make yourself lose since you have no answer to that argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some people just refuse to believe any evidence about the supernatural.
So the reliability of evidence in some cases is a matter of opinion.

I doubt it you have any. At least any reliable evidence. Too many believers have no idea what is and what is not evidence for an argument.

 

[Kenny]

I don't know about his arguments but I know from experience with you and others, that people can be thoroughly wrong and still keep saying they are right and can wear their oponent down that way.
Without an unbiased adjudicator, opinion and dogged hard headedness can win the day, or at least think they have won the day.

That could classify and a new chapter in proverbs. I concur.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Some people just refuse to believe any evidence about the supernatural.

Some people pretend to have evidence when they don't. In fact, in this case, they don't even have a proper definition for the thing they pretend to have evidence for.

So the reliability of evidence in some cases is a matter of opinion.

It is not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

He dedicates his book to martyrs of the Jewish war, so that's probably a reasonable take.

So really, the "extra sources" you pretend to have, don't actually support your claimsat all...

 

[Ebionite]

So really, the "extra sources" you pretend to have, don't actually support your claimsat all...

There's no pretense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well that is exactly the topic of the debate, I am proposing that the resurrection as an example of such hypothesis.

/facepalm

I'm proposing the chocolate cookies dissappearing from my kitchen as an example of extra-dimensional dragons popping into our universe and stealing my cookies.

That is not what is meant by “explanatory power”

Explanatory power is about how well an idea explains the facts and process or whatever. How effective it is at accounting for the facts.

"magic happened" doesn't account for any facts. It's just handwaving.

Explanatory power means that IF your hypothesis where true, how well does it explain the fact or facts to be explained.

In this case the fact (among others) would be

Paul concluded that Jesus resurrected.

Your hypothesis Hallucination caused by psychosis:

If Paul really did had a hallucination is he likely to conclude that Jesus rose from the dead?

Someone having psychosis is likely to conclude pretty much anything. And it's almost always going to be weird and / or magical.
So I don't see why not.

Answer (not really, people hallucinate and see the dead all the type, and they almost never (or perhaps never ever as far as we know) so the hallucination hypothesis doesn’t really explain the fact

This is just false.
There is no way to predict how someone will react to psychotic symptoms nor what they might conclude from it.
There is no particular reason for anyone to not conclude a resurection happened, other then your say-so.

My hypotheiss: Jesus really did rose from the dead: if my hypothesis is true, does it make sense that Paul concluded and proclaimed the resurrection?.............. yes…….. (for obvious reasons)

My hypothesis: big foot exists. if my hypothesis is true, does it make sense that countless people concluded to have spotted bigfoot? ........yes......(for obvious reasons).
My hypothesis: aliens abduct humans. if my hypothesis is true, does it make sense that countless people concluded to have been abducted by aliens? ........yes......(for obvious reasons).


Here's another obvious thing: when you assume a claim is true, then is that consistent with people making the claim?


Great "explanatory power" you have there.

Please make an honest effort and try to understand this point, my hypothesis is obviously much better than yours in terms of explanatory power, because my hypothesis explaines the fact(s) better than yours.

It doesn't. It's fallcious nonsense.

Paul claimed it because it's true. And it's likely true because if it were true, paul would claim it.

That's your "argument" in a nutshell. You are using the claim as evidence for the claim. It's hilariously stupid.

This doesn’t mean that I automatically win, there are other important criteria that could trump “explanatory power”………… you can even argue that this criteria is not even important……………

Indeed. Fallacious nonsense is not important.

But please acknowledge that my hypothesis has better explanatory power than yours.

It doesn't (for obvious reasons).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Becasue there is a big difference between

1 seeing / hallucinating a dead person (or anything else that is not real)

2 and concluding beyond reasonable doubt a bodily resurrection.

There is a huge leap from 1 and 2

A psychotic person will believe the story in his head, the hallucinations, the voices,... to be real beyond reasonable doubt.
And no leroy, there is no such things as "ow psychotics would never conclude that".
You can't predict what psychotics would and would not conclude.
There is no blueprint for the direction a brain that suffers from psychosis will take.

Some believe to be the messiah
Some believe to be followed by the CIA
Some believe that everybody is an alien and they are a human in an alien lab experiment.
...

People believe all kinds of weird and magical things while psychotic.
Some are so much out of touch with reality that they can no longer safely function in society and need to be commited by force.

Your entire objection to the psychosis idea is invalid.
And as explained in another post, your case FOR your own idea is hopelessly fallacious.

So yeah....................

The second would require am additional chunk of evidence , nobody would conclude “resurection” just because they had vision.

For example if you are hungry you are more less likely to have a hallucination and see an ice-cream that doesn’t exist.

But from that to conclude that you actually ate and tasted the ice-cream there is a huge difference.

Many people see ice creams when they are hungry, but few (if any) would live the rest of their lives concluding with certainty that they ate that ice-cream

In the same way many people see their dead relatives, but few (if any) would conclude for the rest of their lives that that person had a bodily resurrection.-

The main point is that “hallucination” doesn’t really explain why the disciples concluded “resurrection”

You keep claiming this and you are just wrong.

But again, not that any of this matters because as I told you, I'm just humoring you on your silly shift of the burden of proof.
As explained multiple times, we don't need an "alternative hypothesis" to shoot gaping wounds in your silly hypothesis.

Your hypothesis falls and stands on its own merits, not on the potential merit of potential alternatives.
We don't need ANY alternatives to shoot down a proposed one if it fails on all levels.