Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[TagliatelliMonster]

What you're selling is nothing more than scientism.

Here come the borderline ad hominen buzzwords.....

No.
What I'm "selling" is nothing more or less then people should build a proper case for their claims

Call it "scientism" if you wish.

The scientific method is not conditional on getting a paycheck.

I never mentioned any paychecks.
With "professional" I mean in the world of academia.
If as a hobby you do exploring as an amateur archeologist or whatever, and you actually stumble upon something big and want to share it with the world...
Don't you think that if your discovery has any impact on anything, especially something as big as this, that it would be picked up on by those who do it professionally?

But there is nothing. There is only the claims of this dude. And nothing to show for it.
And many of those things that can be checked, turn out hilariously wrong also. Problems which are subsequently ignored by Wyatt and his followers, off course.

It's painfully obvious that there is nothing there.
Just like the good ol' "The pyramids were grain silo's of the powerful ancients!"
Or the "lizard people" or "planet X" or "ancient aliens" and whatever else.


Amateur astronomers who discover something also communicate their findings through the normal channels so that it reaches the academic community.

You complain that we pull the scientific method into this? But the dude is trying to do archeology, right? The practice of discovering artefacts that support the occurence of some ancient event? How is that not archeology?
If he is doing archeology, why then would we not evaluate his work using the standards of archeology?

Does it matter if he is paid for it or does it as a hobby?
Does he get a free pass because he's not a professional? Should we lower the standards of evidence for his work because he's just an amateur?
How does any of that make sense?

So to cut this short: this is very much a topic that belongs to the field of science. So it's perfectly fine to evaluate it on scientific criteria. In fact, it's the only applicable standard in this case. Any other would be a mismatch.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My faith is not something that has any bearing on most subjects.

You have just acknowledged otherwise:

Yes they have their records and I have my entitlement to believe or not, as I see fit.
I already believe I have been led to Jesus by God and from here I view things through the eyes of faith in Jesus, just as you view things through a different faith.

Emphasis mine.
If what you say there is true, then your faith most definitly has bearing on most subjects. Since you view everything with that base assumption in mind.


I'ld say that your first quote and what I emphasized in the latter, are in direct contradiction.
One of both is thus wrong it seems to me. Which is it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is it that hard for you to grasp that I don't care what you believe, but don't try to force your beliefs on me.

I don't have any beliefs to force on you.
Furthermore I don't it's even possible to "force" a belief on someone.

I also don't think I've ever even attempted such so I have no clue why you said that either.

That is indeed good advice most of the time.

Most of the time?
Can you give me a real-world example of when it is not and explain how and why it's not?

When is comes to belief in God it is no more than you telling people that God is not real.

Is it?
How so?


Furthermore, even if that were the case (it's not), why would that be a problem?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm just saying that the supernatural is outside the realm of science

Nothing real is outside the realm of science. Imaginary things cannot be examined, but everything else - everything real - interacts with nature (the rest of reality). Your proposing the existence of something that cannot be detected in any manner at any place at any time. Think about what you are claiming. You're saying that something exists that is causally disconnected from our reality. Such a statement can never be confirmed or disconfirmed. It's what's called "not even wrong" for that reason. It wouldn't matter if there were such a thing that could not impact our reality.

That's a pretty grandiose claim.

That the claim of resurrection was a myth? The grandiose claim is that it was NOT a myth. We know for a fact that resurrection was a common theme in ancient stories of demigods, as was a virgin birth, and the ancient Hebrews were aware of these stories.

What you're selling is nothing more than scientism.

This is one of the words people who want their imaginings accepted by strict empiricists use to try to shame them for having rigorous standards for belief. Materialist is another. So is myopic. Such people claim to see further than those tethered to evidence. They tell us they have spiritual truth. Ask them to share some, and it's crickets. They're the ones selling snake oil.

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

Resurrection is never a realistic possibility. If somebody thinks otherwise, they are incorrect.

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

I'm not trying to punish or humiliate you, and my honor is not in question except by you. One wonders why you think I would bring those posts to you now. I would be humiliating myself. I would lose respect for myself. You're not a good judge of human nature. You've mismanaged our discussion if your purpose was for me to cooperate with you. You took the most direct route to the opposite outcome. Refusing to cooperate with me at any level pretty much guarantees my reaction. You were unwilling to give me even a crumb of cooperation. When you refused to do that search, and because you've NEVER once even referred to it, you lost my cooperation. At this point, I do nothing at all because you want it, and that includes discussing those posts if you ever find them. You could come to me today with them excited that you found them, and if you weren't contrite and effusively apologetic, I would treat you as you have treated me. How was that outcome not seen as inevitable by you?

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.

You don't learn, Leroy. You stated earlier that you are aware that you have reading comprehension problems and that you would like to learn from your mistakes. That's not going to happen if something in you doesn't change.

Here are two comments recently written to you on this thread from two other posters:

• "You have made the same claim to me even after I posted an answer more than once."
• "It's like talking to a brick wall."

Remember this? Probably not:

• "There's a saying that if three different people at a party say you're too drunk to drive home, even if you disagree, you should give them your keys. Brian thinks people are ganging up on you because they all report the same problem, but maybe you should consider the possibility that they might be on to something."

 

[ppp]

You can read it here.

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

Yeah. Why would anyone need evidence to rationally reject that?

 

[ppp]

I thought you were offering sound advice until I got to the last 2 words.

Well, I could have said that the things that you proffer as evidence are either non exclusionary, non sequitur, a matter of personal aesthetics, or some combination thereof. But that is nothing you don't know and 2 words covers it succinctly.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

Nope, it's honest, because I answered it already. You even responded to it.
Your inability to remember things, doesn't make others dishonest. If you scrolled back, you'd see my response to it that you responded back to.

 

[SkepticThinker]

why not?


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, it's not a strawman when you're claiming the proposition for god is different depending on who is making the claim (agnostic, atheist, etc.). Which is what you did. You are indeed claiming that "anybody's opinion affects the probability of a claim being true."

 

[SkepticThinker]

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)

We're tired of your diversionary tactics. That's why we don't do it anymore. Total. Waste. Of. Time. Why? Because you'll just make the same accusations again and again and again and ....

It's tedious. It's tiresome. And it adds nothing to the discussion. If you want to accuse someone of lying, then go ahead and demonstrate they're lying and get on with it already.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

He did. I read it myself. And you probably did too. Even if you don't remember, which seems to be a problem of yours on these threads.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

I want the same evidence I'd expect of anything else that actually exists. You're the one giving special exceptions for the special things you believe but can't demonstrate. I don't accept that.

You could always look up a Dictionary definition of supernatural.

I could. Or I could ask the person claiming said "supernatural" exists to provide a definition of what it is they're talking about.
What happened when I asked for one, you may wonder? I got an admission that he can't define it. Oh well then. Sorry. I don't know how somebody can claim the existence of something they can't even define.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

It's simply your claim that it's "out of the realm of science." And a convenient one at that. Now you don't have to actually explain anything! It's just true because you believe it.

 

[leroy]

So you are simply casually going to pretend you don't see the fat fallacious assumed conclusion in those?

yes I can see the failure of those "alíen abduction" hypotheiss

they fail at other important criteria.................... but they still have strog exlanatory power.


In other words, yes these "aliens" hypothesis fail for many reasons, but lack of explanatory power is not one of them



So with that said, can you please explicitly admit that the resurrection has better explanatory power than psychosis? So that we can move to the next criteria?

 

[leroy]

I want the same evidence I'd expect of anything else that actually exists. You're the one giving special exceptions for the special things you believe but can't demonstrate. I don't accept that.

What evidence do you typically accept for the historicity of an event that happened 2000y ago?

I could. Or I could ask the person claiming said "supernatural" exists to provide a definition of what it is they're talking about.
What happened when I asked for one, you may wonder? I got an admission that he can't define it. Oh well then. Sorry. I don't know how somebody can claim the existence of something they can't even define.

“Supernatrual” doesn’t have a universal definition………… the definition depends on the context. (most words are like that)

Everytime I use the term supernatural you can always ask me what do I mean in that specific context.

 

[leroy]

Leroy, it's not a strawman when you're claiming the proposition for god is different depending on who is making the claim (agnostic, atheist, etc.). Which is what you did. You are indeed claiming that "anybody's opinion affects the probability of a claim being true."

Nope, what I said is that your opinion on how likely you think is the existence of God, largely determines your view on how realistic are miracles and resurrections.

The event itself doesn’t become more likely because of your opinion, just your subjective view on how realistic the event sounds

 

[leroy]

He did. I read it myself. And you probably did too. Even if you don't remember, which seems to be a problem of yours on these threads.

You made that up. (red letters)

But I most admit that one of my central points has been refuted.

My point being, that people (like the apostles) don’t lie if they don’t have a good reason for lying

 

[SkepticThinker]

What evidence do you typically accept for the historicity of an event that happened 2000y ago?

Something more than some fantastical stories in an old book would be good, for starters.

“Supernatrual” doesn’t have a universal definition………… the definition depends on the context. (most words are like that)

Probably because it's just made up.

Everytime I use the term supernatural you can always ask me what do I mean in that specific context.

I have. Many times.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You made that up. (red letters)

Nope I didn't. And I'll thank you to not call me a liar.

But I most admit that one of my central points has been refuted.

Well, that's honest.

My point being, that people (like the apostles) don’t lie if they don’t have a good reason for lying

And?

 

[leroy]

Something more than some fantastical stories

Well if the alleged fact is a fantastical event, why wouldn’t you expect fantastical stories?

in an old book would be good, for starters.

Huh……….. so would you prefer a recent book?

Probably because it's just made up.

Yes, all words and definitions are made up ,,,

I have. Many times.

Ok, and I am sure you received an appropriate answer




but you still didnt answer the question................. what type of evidence do you typically accept fort he historicity of an event form ancient history?

 

[shunyadragon]

Well if the alleged fact is a fantastical event, why wouldn’t you expect fantastical stories?

You do get 'fantastical stories' in all ancient religions involving the major persons in the religions

Ok, and I am sure you received an appropriate answer

No appropriate meaningful answer was provided. It still remains that supernatural events are common to all ancient religions, and based on academic historical standards none can be confirmed as historical events. The claim of resurrection is no exception.