Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[joelr]

Where's your proof that he is a fraud? Fraud requires a victim, but not even @Subduction Zone has tried that one.

It isn't hard to find information that shows he is a fraud.
" This book makes it quite plain that Ron Wyatt never provided evidence for his outlandish discoveries that he said he had in his videos. That Wyatt doctored the videos with manufactured evidence becomes quite plain after reading the book."

Ron Wyatt Archaeological Research Fraud Documentation (WAR, W.A.R.)

Facts proving Ron Wyatt's so-called

www.tentmaker.org

Here is a blog article on him from a science blog:

Ron Wyatt: Collosal Fraud | ScienceBlogs

And out come the wingnuts. Here's the email I just received from someone named James Albright: Dear Ed, Noah's ark was discovered by Ron Wyatt, whose ministry is named Wyatt Archeological Research. The news media is only taking attention away from the real ark through your ministry. Please stop...

scienceblogs.com

and this:

A Great Christian Scam​

A Great Christian Scam

The crowning achievement was the discovery of the lost Ark of the Covenant buried 20 feet below the crucifixion site. He claimed the Ark was sprinkled by the blood of Jesus Christ when his side was pierced and the earthquake opened a crack which opened the way for His blood to literally drop...

www.tentmaker.org

his victims are the people who fell for his lies and spent money on his fake finds -

The Discoveries Volume

wyattmuseum.com

If this is your source, you do not care about what is actually true.

 

[joelr]

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.

Interesting. So YOU get to pick and choose which supernatural event you feel is credible, yet ALL OTHER people and especially scholarship are not allowed to do the same. So it actually isn't the supernatural bias at all but rather a dogma you have been "led" to. This invalidates your entire idea. Historical scholars were "led" by evidence, truth, and their own feelings of what is right.

Now you do not believe the Quran because you do not believe Gabrielle came down and gave updates to Muhammad. Or you would be Muslim. It's that simple. You don't believe it. It's because it's a supernatural bias. IF it isn't, and you now say it's because you were "led" then the entire bias thing was BS. Now it's about being "led".

Now you are making an apologetic claim that since you have been "led" to Jesus you may now view those supernatural stories as true.
Many problems here.
1) Others may not have been led and should not allow for unproven supernatural events in stories to be taken on faith.
2)Other people view things from the eyes of faith in the Quran and have been led to Islam from God. They claim, like you, they were led by God. Same with Mormons, JW and all religions.
So the feeling of being "led" clearly is unreliable. Can you please demonstrate the methodology you use to distinguish between unreliable situations where you are led and reliable situations where you are led that are distinct from your beliefs?
Because it sounds like you bought into a story and decided all those supernatural events will be true and all other stories in other religions and sects will be untrue. But you haven't explained how your version of being "led" is different from a Muslim or Mormon. They all make the same claim.


I do NOT view things through any faith, I view things through evidence, logic, rational thought and skepticism. Feelings of being "led" is unanimous in all religions. Provide evidence your method is more reliable.
I have 14 numbers, from pi written down. Ask God if he will "lead" you to knowing the correct numbers and write them down.
How about 2 words? I have. words written down, ask the holy spirit to lead you to the knowledge of 2 words that will help demonstrate the power of being led by the correct version of God.

Feeling led because you learned a supernatural story is 100% psychology and seems to happen no matter the religion. Making your method completely useless until you demonstrate it's more effective. Without circular logic.

 

[joelr]

Supernatural is defined as those things beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
So skeptics want to say they have to be part of nature and have verifiable scientific evidence or they are not true.

No science recognizes there are things we do not yet know.
But we don't yet have evidence for them.
Ancient stories that are 100% explained buy taking a Mesopotamian/Near Eastern influenced God and religion, adding Persian theology (virgin born world saviors, free, then combine will, God vas devil, end times battle against devil where all followers bodily resurrect and live in paradise on earth, and more), then combine that with Hellenism (souls, heaven for souls, redemption fro souls through a passion of a savior son/daughter of a supreme deity, Logos, communal meal, individualism, henotheism trending toward monotheism, cosmopolitanism) and you get a Jewish version of a Hellenistic mystery religion.
No chance it's real.
Even the first apologist ever, Justin Martyr admitted Jesus was just like the Greek deities (but the devil made those religions to fool Christians into thinking Jesus was a copy of them).

Gospels are anon, non-eyewitness, all copied from Mark, Mark is written in 100% historical fiction.

That is part of nature, It's called mythology. Holding a belief in any myth doesn't make it real.

 

[joelr]

That does not mean that you don't view all things from your atheist pov however.

The same way you don't believe in Hercules, Krishna, Osirus or THor, atheists don't believe in Jesus or Yahweh.

Does your non-belief in Osirus inform your views on "all things"? There is no atheist perspective. Not believing in complete mythology from thousands of years ago (you also do) is just one thing.
When you make a choice about something do you ever say "hmmm, well I don't believe in Osirus, so how should I approach this situation in light of my non-belief of Osirus???"
No. It's a story, no evidence, actual evidence of trending myths, Jewish religious leaders adapted those into the religion over centuries, the end.

Why you need to make atheism off to be something it's not is bizarre.

 

[paarsurrey]

Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus​

Left Coast said: #8
Because people don't come back alive after being dead for days, as a rule. It's a one way trip. Any claim of some miracle explanation for a phenomenon that violates everything we know about how the world works is going to have automatically very low plausibility.
Apologes said: #10
We know that people don't rise from the dead on their own, true, but here we are talking about God raising someone from the dead. This isn't going against how the world works as its not the laws of nature that are raising the dead but an act of God. On what basis would you assign a low plausibility to God choosing to raise Jesus from the dead a priori?
paarsurrey said: #421
Clue from Bible :Jesus did not resurrect, he need not, as rising from the physical dead is against "Sign of Jonah":
Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah rising from the physical dead is against Sign of Jonah, I (therefore) must say (Jesus did not resurrect at all), as I understand?
Right?

paarsurrey said: #430
Jonah did not die in the belly of the fish so Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah could not and did not die on the Cross or in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, please, right?

paarsurrey said: #449
Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah pegged the Sign of Jonah to be shown to the Jews and the Jews knew as per Book of Jonah that (1) Jonah entered the belly of fish alive, (2)remained alive in the belly of the fish and (3)came out alive from the belly of the fish, so if the Sign was for the Jews then Yeshua had to remain alive and he did remain alive (1) on the Cross, (2) in the tomb where he was laid and (3) afterwards as he was seen by many, please, right?

paarsurrey adds:#476
Since Jonah was a truthful prophet of G-d so applying the same criteria Jesus/Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah was also a truthful prophet, please, right?

• paarsurrey#540
• There are many clues in the Gospels itself that Yeshua- the truthful truthful Messiah did not die on the Cross in the first place so there is no question of his being resurrected from the dead, please, right?

1. Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah prayed in the garden of Gethsemane most fervently to G-d (whom he used to call God-the-Father) that his life may be saved:

Matthew 36-40
36 Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane; and he said to his disciples, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.” 37 He took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be grieved and agitated. 38 Then he said to them, “I am deeply grieved, even to death; remain here, and stay awake with me.” 39 And going a little farther, he threw himself on the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want.” 40

So G-d willed and accepted Yeshua's prayer to the astonishment of Pauline-Christianity people and saved the life of Yeshua against all the odds, please, right?
First Clue in the Gospels :“My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me "

• #776

So, G-d made it possible to let the cup pass from him. Yeshua's prayer was accepted by G-d.
Right?

• #1,144

Second clue: Messiah's bones were not broken

• #1,210

Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah's bones were not broken, Pilate's wife saw a dream* and told Pilate to refrain from killing Yeshua, so he maneuvered to save Yeshua's life, right?
*Matthew 27:19
New International Version
"While Pilate was sitting on the judge’s seat, his wife sent him this message: “Don’t have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him.”
paarsurrey:

• #1,576

So, Pilate maneuvered and arranged things to save Jesus/Yeshua's life, and the truthful Israelite Messiah did not die on the Cross, right?
paarsurrey:

• #1,585

It was an arranged ploy by Pilate that the constable did not break Yeshua's bones and declared him already dead, right?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Cherry picking the resurrection narrative? But some of the apostles were just as shocked by the return of Jesus from apparent death. The Sanhedrin wanted Jesus gone! After a trumped up trial they found him guilty of whatever and went to their occupiers to have Jesus put to death.

• #1,585

It was an arranged ploy by Pilate that the constables did not break Yeshua's bones and declared him already dead, right?
Right?

Regards

 

[Colt]

• #1,585

It was an arranged ploy by Pilate that the constables did not break Yeshua's bones and declared him already dead, right?
Right?

Regards

No! Wrong! Or you are just adding that theory because you don't believe in the resurrection. Jesus had already foretold these events before the tragic rejection, sham trial and unjust murder!

 

[Brian2]

Interesting. So YOU get to pick and choose which supernatural event you feel is credible, yet ALL OTHER people and especially scholarship are not allowed to do the same. So it actually isn't the supernatural bias at all but rather a dogma you have been "led" to. This invalidates your entire idea. Historical scholars were "led" by evidence, truth, and their own feelings of what is right.

Historical scholars can believe whatever they want to,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, as part of their personal faith.

Now you do not believe the Quran because you do not believe Gabrielle came down and gave updates to Muhammad. Or you would be Muslim. It's that simple. You don't believe it. It's because it's a supernatural bias. IF it isn't, and you now say it's because you were "led" then the entire bias thing was BS. Now it's about being "led".

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying, but I'm not a historical scholar and am not presenting a historical scholarly work about anything.
Scholars otoh are supposed to be as unbiased as possible in their works and arguments for one position or another.

Now you are making an apologetic claim that since you have been "led" to Jesus you may now view those supernatural stories as true.
Many problems here.
1) Others may not have been led and should not allow for unproven supernatural events in stories to be taken on faith.
2)Other people view things from the eyes of faith in the Quran and have been led to Islam from God. They claim, like you, they were led by God. Same with Mormons, JW and all religions. So the feeling of being "led" clearly is unreliable.

Scholars also disagree. With your line of reasoning, supposedly unbiased scholarship is also unreliable.

Can you please demonstrate the methodology you use to distinguish between unreliable situations where you are led and reliable situations where you are led that are distinct from your beliefs?
Because it sounds like you bought into a story and decided all those supernatural events will be true and all other stories in other religions and sects will be untrue. But you haven't explained how your version of being "led" is different from a Muslim or Mormon. They all make the same claim.

Yes, I bought into a story and I have no methodology. Are you saying that I need one? Have you got one apart from saying that what you believe seems right to you?
Do you think that the majority of historians, the ones who disagree with you and your beliefs and with Richard Carrie and etc, are going on what seems right to them or on some scholarly methodologies?

I do NOT view things through any faith, I view things through evidence, logic, rational thought and skepticism. Feelings of being "led" is unanimous in all religions. Provide evidence your method is more reliable.

It sounds like you are saying that your beliefs are correct and logically undeniable and those of other historical scholars are not. I suppose that means you think they are biased opinions only, since they disagree with you.

Feeling led because you learned a supernatural story is 100% psychology and seems to happen no matter the religion. Making your method completely useless until you demonstrate it's more effective. Without circular logic.

So disagreement among scholars shows that scholarship is completely useless?

 

[Brian2]

No science recognizes there are things we do not yet know.
But we don't yet have evidence for them.
Ancient stories that are 100% explained buy taking a Mesopotamian/Near Eastern influenced God and religion, adding Persian theology (virgin born world saviors, free, then combine will, God vas devil, end times battle against devil where all followers bodily resurrect and live in paradise on earth, and more), then combine that with Hellenism (souls, heaven for souls, redemption fro souls through a passion of a savior son/daughter of a supreme deity, Logos, communal meal, individualism, henotheism trending toward monotheism, cosmopolitanism) and you get a Jewish version of a Hellenistic mystery religion.
No chance it's real.
Even the first apologist ever, Justin Martyr admitted Jesus was just like the Greek deities (but the devil made those religions to fool Christians into thinking Jesus was a copy of them).

Gospels are anon, non-eyewitness, all copied from Mark, Mark is written in 100% historical fiction.

That is part of nature, It's called mythology. Holding a belief in any myth doesn't make it real.

Holding an anti supernatural bias does not mean that there is no God and no supernatural.
If you believe only those things that science says they can analyse, and reject belief in anything else, then that is just part of your world view.
If you start with this world view and see the world through it, you end up saying things about the date and authorship of the Bible which you say and end up saying that there is no chance that the gospel is real.
It's all a logical progression from your world view and it has taken the form of a faith, as can be seen in how you speak about your views on the Bible etc.
And you see it as the only possible right position on the Bible stories and don't realise that you have arrived there from your particular world view, and where you have arrived might be just completely wrong and the result of turning down a blind alley along your logical pathways.

 

[Brian2]

The same way you don't believe in Hercules, Krishna, Osirus or THor, atheists don't believe in Jesus or Yahweh.

Does your non-belief in Osirus inform your views on "all things"? There is no atheist perspective. Not believing in complete mythology from thousands of years ago (you also do) is just one thing.
When you make a choice about something do you ever say "hmmm, well I don't believe in Osirus, so how should I approach this situation in light of my non-belief of Osirus???"
No. It's a story, no evidence, actual evidence of trending myths, Jewish religious leaders adapted those into the religion over centuries, the end.

Why you need to make atheism off to be something it's not is bizarre.

Can't you see that I am defending myself from people who seem to be saying that because I look at the world through my beliefs that means that all my thoughts and decisions are biased?
Are all your thought and decisions biased because you view the world through your world view?
Do you have a different answer for 1+1 because you are an atheist?
Why you (and other atheists) need to make my comment to be something it's not is bizarre.

 

[paarsurrey]

Can't you see that I am defending myself from people who seem to be saying that because I look at the world through my beliefs that means that all my thoughts and decisions are biased?
Are all your thought and decisions biased because you view the world through your world view?
Do you have a different answer for 1+1 because you are an atheist?
Why you (and other atheists) need to make my comment to be something it's not is bizarre.

Atheism is based in superstition and ignorance, one must say, right?

Regards

 

[SkepticThinker]

Holding an anti supernatural bias does not mean that there is no God and no supernatural.
If you believe only those things that science says they can analyse, and reject belief in anything else, then that is just part of your world view.
If you start with this world view and see the world through it, you end up saying things about the date and authorship of the Bible which you say and end up saying that there is no chance that the gospel is real.
It's all a logical progression from your world view and it has taken the form of a faith, as can be seen in how you speak about your views on the Bible etc.
And you see it as the only possible right position on the Bible stories and don't realise that you have arrived there from your particular world view, and where you have arrived might be just completely wrong and the result of turning down a blind alley along your logical pathways.

This seems like a lot of words just to say "I want to believe what I want to believe because I want to believe it."

And just more attempts at transferring your faith onto people who have no use for it, and/or outright reject it as a unreliable pathway to truth.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Atheism is based in superstition and ignorance, one must say, right?

Regards

What?

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said:
Atheism is based in superstition and ignorance, one must say, right?

What?

Superstition- a belief or practice resulting from ignorance.

This perfectly fits on the Atheism people, there is no requirement of any knowledge to be an Atheist, right?
Atheism is open to any ignorant man whatsoever, right?
Simply :

• one has to jump into its fold without any solid, valid and positive evidence/s at hand that "Atheism" is true ,right?
• And nit pricking others, right?

makes one a "believer" of the "Religion/Faith" of "Atheism".

Right?

Regards

 

[SkepticThinker]

paarsurrey said:
Atheism is based in superstition and ignorance, one must say, right?


Superstition- a belief or practice resulting from ignorance.

This perfectly fits on the Atheism people, there is no requirement of any knowledge to be an Atheist, right?
Atheism is open to any ignorant man whatsoever, right?
Simply :

• one has to jump into its fold without any solid, valid and positive evidence/s at hand that "Atheism" is true ,right?
• And nit pricking others, right?

makes one a "believer" of the "Religion/Faith" of "Atheism".

Right?

Regards

Atheism is lack of belief in god(s). That's it. One does not have to "jump into its fold without any solid" whatever that means. We just don't believe in god(s). Not believing in a god(s) isn't a religion any more than not collecting stamps is a religion.

What's superstitious about that? Where is faith required?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Atheism is based in superstition and ignorance, one must say, right?

Most atheists are critical thinkers and agnostic regarding gods. Their agnostic atheism is the only position possible for somebody who believes that no idea should be considered correct until it is empirically demonstrated to accurately map some aspect of reality, and who finds the evidence for gods insufficient to justify belief.

Atheism is open to any ignorant man whatsoever, right?

Yes, like theism, although the educated tend to prefer atheism. Education doesn't seem to inhibit church-going in believers, but it does inhibit theism and religiosity, that is, it inhibits being such a believer. From Pew: "among U.S. adults overall, higher levels of education are linked with lower levels of religious commitment by some measures, such as belief in God, how often people pray and how important they say religion is to them."

makes one a "believer" of the "Religion/Faith" of "Atheism".

What the believer has is a religion and requires faith, but atheism doesn't require any belief, nor imply any belief except that there isn't a good reason to be a theist as discussed above. It is the result of the absence of faith and the lack of need for gods.

 

[ppp]

Atheism is based in superstition and ignorance, one must say, right?

Regards

Love for all, except Humanists. Alas.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

And evidence that you like to eat dogfood yourself.

My brother and I tried a neighborhood dog’s Kibbles n Bits once. Reminded me of Capn Crunch.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

You said the gospels are a myth and made up. I’ll give you that. All religions are a myth and made up imo. The truth as to how we got here and where we are going is so far removed from any religious teachings in a book imo.

Including the planet being created when I was 3?

 

[Jimmy]

Including the planet being created when I was 3?

No, that would be true imo.