Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Prove he is lying. I don't see it.

Thanks.

I would have given Leroy what he wanted if he had made an effort to search for the posts I claim exist and couldn't find them in a timely manner. But that ship has sailed. The window of opportunity for him has closed. He has no excuse for refusing to cooperate or refusing to acknowledge seeing it. Leroy needs to know what behaviors result in what consequences so that he can make better choices in similar circumstances in the future. I need to give Leroy an incentive to do better.

I mean if a coworker is wrongly accusing you for not sending the information on time, the most reasonable think to do is to resend the email, with the original date and time, so that your coworker can see that you did send the information on time. If instead of sending that email as proof that you delivered the information on time, and you simple claim “yes I did send the information on time” but I will not prove it because of some stupid reasons concerning that you are not going to do his job, …………. Your coworker would justifiable conclude that you are lying that that such information was not send on time.

Stupid reasons? No, stupid analogy. We're not coworkers, and I have no incentive or duty to do anything for you apart from helping make you a better person if you allow it.

And yes, regarding, " justifiable conclude that you are lying that that such information was not send on time," your delays have cost you. There is no good reason for them, and as you suggest, dishonesty is a plausible reason for that.

But even assuming agnosticism (I don’t know if God exists or not, probability arround 50% / 50% ) the resurrection would still be realistic.

Not to a critical thinker.

Only form the point of view of a strong atheist who claims to have conclusive evidence against the existence of God, the resurrection becomes non-realistic. Any disagreement form your part?

Yes, I disagree. That is incorrect. Nobody's opinion about resurrection change its possibility.

My intent, (and the intent of the OP) is that you propose a naturalistic hypothesis and then we debate on which hypothesis is better. So yes, the intent is that the burden proof is shared.

Your opinion here is irrelevant. If the OP wants others to propose a naturalistic hypothesis, he can ask for one. He offered an argument for supernaturalism. There is no burden of proof for anybody but him. The critical thinker's job is done when he decides if the OP has made his case or not.

And when dealing with somebody who can't identify a sound argument himself, there is no burden of proof, because lacking the necessary skill set, there is no hope of demonstrating anything to him. What's my burden of proof to a five-year-old if I say that that the sum of the square of the length of the sides of a right triangle equals the square of the length of the hypotenuse. When he says, prove it, I say go learn some algebra and geometry first. To you, I say, first learn to think critically.

Your arguments have been refuted, but if you're unable to see that, then there is no burden to show you. For example, your 50/50 trope has been refuted, but you're still repeating it. What duty do you suppose others have to keep telling you why you're wrong?

 

[leroy]

Because I already did the first three times you posted it.

No you did not, this tactic of avoiding question by saying “I already answered” is dishonest

 

[leroy]

leroy said: But even assuming agnosticism (I don’t know if God exists or not, probability arround 50% / 50% ) the resurrection would still be realistic.

Not to a critical thinker.

why not?

Yes, I disagree. That is incorrect. Nobody's opinion about resurrection change its possibility.

strawman

All I am sayign is that form the *subjective* point of view of a theist or the point of view of an agnostic the resurrection is a realistic possibility.

Agree, yes or no

*I am defining agnostic as someone who is morless at 50% 50% in terms on how convice is he for the existence of a god. …………… if you think that “agnostic” is not a proper term, then use any other label.

I am not claiming that anybody´s opinion affects the probability of a claim being true……………see I accused you for making a straw man and I justified my accusation

 

[leroy]

Thanks.


Stupid reasons? No, stupid analogy. We're not coworkers, and I have no incentive or duty to do anything for you apart from helping make you a better person if you allow it.

Again, if

1 someone is accusing for being a liar

2 you can easilly show that you are not a liar

The normal and reasonable thing to do is to show that you are not lying,

One wonders, why do you think “punishing” me is more important for you than defending your honor (and to humiliate me)

 

[leroy]

Prove he is lying.

I asked him to explain and developed a hypothesis, and to explain why is that hypothesis better according to the criteria presented in the OP.

He lied because he claimed that he already did, when he didn’t.

 

[Brian2]

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

So are you say that the apostles etc did not see a resurrected Jesus, and if they had looked at the resurrection prophecies they would know that the resurrected Jesus they saw was just an illusion?

 

[Brian2]

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

I would say that the cows are heading towards the cliff and God is wanting to turn them around but they don't want to follow Him.

 

[Brian2]

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.

No I wouldn't have any evidence you would like. You seem to have been taught what good scientific evidence is and have decided that all evidence has to be like that or it is not evidence.

 

[Ebionite]

So are you say that the apostles etc did not see a resurrected Jesus, and if they had looked at the resurrection prophecies they would know that the resurrected Jesus they saw was just an illusion?

The best explanation I've found is that they saw him after the incident at the house of friends and assumed that injuries were from the crucifixion.

Zechariah 13​
6	And [one] shall say unto him, What [are] these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, [Those] with which I was wounded [in] the house of my friends.

It's pretty unlikely that the apostles would have been scouring the Psalms looking for answers at that time IMO.

 

[Brian2]

That's because when we ask for it, we don't get any evidence. Instead we get faith-based proclamations.

If you want the evidence to be the same as evidence for physical phenomena etc then you are ignoring that the supernatural is defined to be beyond the scope of science.

Heck, we can't even get a definition of the thing(s) we're supposed to be provided evidence of.

You could always look up a Dictionary definition of supernatural.

 

[Brian2]

He can’t exist outside time. He wouldn’t be able to do or think anything because that requires time.

Does "knowing" require time? Nothing changes. What can be measured?
I'm not sure what God is supposed to have done outside of time, if anything.

 

[Brian2]

The best explanation I've found is that they saw him after the incident at the house of friends and assumed that injuries were from the crucifixion.

Zechariah 13​
6	And [one] shall say unto him, What [are] these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, [Those] with which I was wounded [in] the house of my friends.

It's pretty unlikely that the apostles would have been scouring the Psalms looking for answers at that time IMO.

They said that Jesus had already told them that He would be killed and rise again and the reasons.
They said that Jesus took them through the scriptures after His resurrection and told them which scriptures related to Him.

 

[Ebionite]

No I wouldn't have any evidence you would like. You seem to have been taught what good scientific evidence is and have decided that all evidence has to be like that or it is not evidence.

Subduction Zone isn't credible. He said that he could provide reliable sources and then he abandoned the field.

Did Jesus create mankind (Adam)?

Do you have reliable sources which provide an alternative explanation for the four-spoken wheel Ron Wyatt photographed in the Red Sea? https://wyattmuseum.com/chariot-wheels-in-the-red-sea/2011-669 Oh my FSM?? You are a hoot! Those are modern day ship's valve wheels That is the work...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Brian2]

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.


It is not.

If you are demanding scientific evidence for things that are outside the realm of science, what do you expect?

 

[ppp]

No I wouldn't have any evidence you would like. You seem to have been taught what good scientific evidence is and have decided that all evidence has to be like that or it is not evidence.

The claim of "you would like" is an evasion and a lie. People accept evidence for things that they do not like every single day. Your evidence is not rejected because someone does not like it. You evidence is rejected because it is crappy evidence.

 

[ppp]

Subduction Zone isn't credible. He said that he could provide reliable sources and then he abandoned the field.

Did Jesus create mankind (Adam)?

Do you have reliable sources which provide an alternative explanation for the four-spoken wheel Ron Wyatt photographed in the Red Sea? https://wyattmuseum.com/chariot-wheels-in-the-red-sea/2011-669 Oh my FSM?? You are a hoot! Those are modern day ship's valve wheels That is the work...

www.religiousforums.com

Evidence of what, exactly?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No I wouldn't have any evidence you would like. You seem to have been taught what good scientific evidence is and have decided that all evidence has to be like that or it is not evidence.

It is not a matter of it being "liked" it is a matter of it being reliable. If you only have garbage sources then you have to have a garbage arguent as a result. Or in other words GIGO. There are standards for evidence in various fields and for very good reasons. The only "evidence" that I do not like is evidence that is worthless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Subduction Zone isn't credible. He said that he could provide reliable sources and then he abandoned the field.

Did Jesus create mankind (Adam)?

Do you have reliable sources which provide an alternative explanation for the four-spoken wheel Ron Wyatt photographed in the Red Sea? https://wyattmuseum.com/chariot-wheels-in-the-red-sea/2011-669 Oh my FSM?? You are a hoot! Those are modern day ship's valve wheels That is the work...

www.religiousforums.com

I said if you were polite. Do I have to quote the post? Making personal attacks, especially false ones is against the rules here. Just a second I will quote my post that you either did not read or did not understand.

Here is a quote from my post where I first offered to give you evidence. You can go back and check it out, it is still there. And you can see that it was never edited:

"Because I can link to reliable sources if needed. You do not have to trust me. You could try to find the sources yourself. But if you ask politely for sources I will gladly link them."

 

[Subduction Zone]

No you did not, this tactic of avoiding question by saying “I already answered” is dishonest

You have made the same claim to me even after I posted an answer more than once. In one case I even offered to do so again if you would admit that you screwed up. You refused to do so, so you got no answer. I have seen multiple people answer your demands multiple times and if you do not like the answer you either do not remember them or you deny them.

Change your debating techniques if you want answers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence of what, exactly?

I told him in another thread that Moses was fictional. He claimed that there was archaeological evidence for Moses, I said that I had never seen any. So he posted some pictures by Ron Wyatt, if you do not know who he is Google him, of modern brass ships valve wheels that he Wyatt claimed were Egyptian chariot wheels. He then became rude and forgot that I had said if asked politely that I would provide him with evidence. He can't seem to remember that.