Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[Brian2]

Such as?

I can think of a ton of things that used to be attributed to gods, before we figured out scientifically how the world around us works.

Yes that is what I said. People in general were more superstitions and what they did not understand was attributed to the supernatural.

Such as?

Creation, how life came about.

Sorry, what?

I was saying that you say that what I believe is not true just because I believe it and so the same applies to you.
Maybe you should read a whole section of what I write and not divide it into just sentences. You might understand what I said by looking at the whole thought bite.

 

[Brian2]

And here we have more claims. Scientists don't know how to test spirits? Cool. Okay. So, how did you detect them then? What's a spirit?
You don't seem to understand that you are making claims about reality that you claim are not testable nor demonstrable in any way. And yet you've claimed to detect something that is undetectable. In essence, you're claiming special powers for yourself.

Not just for myself. I have many friends with the same powers.

Yeah we do.

No you don't.

But you just said god is a "living spirit." So is "spirit" an idea or is it an actual thing?
And now you claim "god is love."

Love is a spiritual thing and does not exist in the skeptic's world. What exists is molecules and interactions of groups of molecules with other groups.
Consciousness is not a real thing for a skeptic, only molecules interacting is real.
Ideas and emotions and even consciousness are all not concrete enough to be real for a real materialistic skeptic.
But what is greater, a group of molecules or the consciousness that sees and analyses those molecules?

 

[shunyadragon]

so true... They should have had CNN recording while Jesus lived... after all, they should have know that you would be asking 2000 years later. Disciples recording after the fact is just inadmissible. Just because they were eye witnesses isirrelveant.

There are no known records of eye witnesses

No... this is just you position - which you are free to have. It just doesn't negate what I believe or what others believed during the time Jesus was alive.

You have made it clear that you are a believer in what the gospels describe about the time Jesus was alive, that is not what is under debate.

Actually, it is not my position. It does not negate nor support anything other than some of what you listed in the beginning. Jesus is considered a historical figure likely a Jewish rabbi who claimed to be the King of the Jews, was convicted by a Roman Court under Pontius Pilate and crucified.

 

[shunyadragon]

What does a reasonable argument mean to you?
Given that you already believe that Bible historians are being neutral when they obviously are not, reasonable for me must be different for you.

Nor all Biblical Historians are not neutral. Some historians argue that Jesus never existed. Some fundamental Christian historians believe the gospels, Genesis, and Exodus are literal history including the miracles, Then there are those who follow the Oxford Academic Standards for history

You have not demonstrated that the historians following the Oxford Academic Standards are not neutral. By definition, they cannot determine whether the supernatural events recorded in the Bible or the scripture in any other religion are true or false.

Respond to post #1,651.

 

[Brian2]

It is obvious you fail to understand the basics of the Standards of Academics in any field. It is fundamental that these standards in that Science and Historical academic conclusions cannot prove or demonstrate anything false that lacks objective evidence to support the conclusions. Supernatural events today and 2,000 years ago lack historical or scientific evidence to prove ot demonstrate that they are true or false. ALL beliefs in supernatural events are subjective and subject to belief only.

To accept something is true or false according to academic standards would illogical to make unsupported claims in history and today.

So the academic standard is based on a lack of belief in the supernatural but belief in the supernatural is not allowed even if the scriptures in question claim evidence of the supernatural.
That evidence cannot be accepted even if it claims to be eyewitness evidence.
But believing those claims are false can be accepted.

You need to document where the conclusions of these Universal Academic Standards involve the accusation of lying, which you cannot.

That is the accusation of lying, saying that the witness accounts in the scriptures are not true.

As with all ancient religious writings, those who wrote, edited, and redated the texts most likely believed what they wrote. It is not the goal of Oxford Historical Standards to judge whether they lied or not. Do you propose that the supernatural events and beliefs of all religions are accepted as factual such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam?

I propose that the ancient religious writings be treated as if true until shown to be not true.

Regardless of the fact of when they were written, it remains they are written second or third hand not by those that witnessed the life of Jesus first hand.

How do you know that?
The idea that the gospels were written second or third hand comes from the idea that the supernatural is not true and the prophecy about the destruction of the Temple had to have been written after 70AD.
So you (and others) use the "neutral" presupposition of historians that the supernatural is not true to date the gospels and show that they cannot be witness accounts because they were written so late.
Prophetic evidence is denied and the prophecy is called a lie by the subjective lack of belief of academia.
But the subjective belief is called bias even though it shows that the synoptic gospels were written within about 30 years of Jesus death.
And then all the skeptics come along and say "Hey look the consensus of the historians is that the gospels were written late in the first century by people who did not know Jesus and only the biased apologists say they were written by witnesses."

 

[shunyadragon]

So the academic standard is based on a lack of belief in the supernatural but belief in the supernatural is not allowed even if the scriptures in question claim evidence of the supernatural.
That evidence cannot be accepted even if it claims to be eyewitness evidence.
But believing those claims are false can be accepted.

Again claiming to be evidence by eyewitness accounts today for ghosts, demons, aliens, vampires, zombies, and the supernatural accounts of the Gospels does not justify that they are demonstrated true or false.

No, based on the Oxford Academic standards they cannot 'believe' these claims can be accepted as false.

There are no first-person witnesses of the life of Jesus recorded in the New Testament.

That is the accusation of lying, saying that the witness accounts in the scriptures are not true.

Oxford academic history standards do not determine whether the supernatural accounts in the gospels (there are not any first-person witness accounts) are true or false.

I propose that the ancient religious writings be treated as if true until shown to be not true.

This a logical fallacy of an 'appeal to authority.'

How do you know that?
The idea that the gospels were written second or third hand comes from the idea that the supernatural is not true and the prophecy ab

All the available evidence based on the text and outside sources has determined beyond a reasonable doubt that whoever compiled, edited, and redacted the gospels was not a first-person witness of the life of Jesus.

Even today first-[erson witness claims of supernatural events are not considered factual, true or false.

All the available evidence of the text out the destruction of the Temple had to have been written after 70AD.

True.

So you (and others) use the "neutral" presupposition of historians that the supernatural is not true to date the gospels and show that they cannot be witness accounts because they were written so late.

No, claims of supernatural events cannot be considered true or false regardless today or over 2,000+ years ago,

Prophetic evidence is denied and the prophecy is called a lie by the subjective lack of belief of academia.
But the subjective belief is called bias even though it shows that the synoptic gospels were written within about 30 years of Jesus death.

Nothing above is considered true, false or a lie based on the academic standards.

And then all the skeptics come along and say "Hey look the consensus of the historians is that the gospels were written late in the first century by people who did not know Jesus and only the biased apologists say they were written by witnesses."

What skeptics say has no meaning in my claim that History should be based on the Oxford Academic History with a bias to the claims of one religion over another.

The facts of the Gospel texts and related documents have determined the gospels were not written by witnesses. Academic standards do not consider claims of supernatural events as historical facts today or over 2,000 years ago regardless. By definition if objective evidence documents an event it becomes a natural event and is documented as history.

 

[Brian2]

Again claiming to be evidence by eyewitness accounts today for ghosts, demons, aliens, vampires, zombies, and the supernatural accounts of the Gospels does not justify that they are demonstrated true or false.

No, based on the Oxford Academic standards they cannot 'believe' these claims can be accepted as false.

There are no first-person witnesses of the life of Jesus recorded in the New Testament.

It does not matter if the accounts are first person or not, it is the subject matter that counts.
I'm not sure what this sentence means. "No, based on the Oxford Academic standards they cannot 'believe' these claims can be accepted as false."
But judging on how the claims are treated, they are seen as false until proven to be true.

Oxford academic history standards do not determine whether the supernatural accounts in the gospels (there are not any first-person witness accounts) are true or false.

Yet the supernatural prophecy of the Temple destruction is allowed to be seen as false and so post 70AD seen as the writing date for the synoptic gospels.

This a logical fallacy of an 'appeal to authority.'

Not really, it is just being fair to all mentions of the supernatural in ancient scriptures and not just the Bible.
So seeing the supernatural as true is a fallacy (appeal to authority fallacy) and seeing it as false is just what the academics do these days. Better listen to the authority of the Oxfordacademic history standards. Why isn't that seen as an appeal to authority fallace?

All the available evidence based on the text and outside sources has determined beyond a reasonable doubt that whoever compiled, edited, and redacted the gospels was not a first-person witness of the life of Jesus.

Luke and Mark maybe.

Even today first-[erson witness claims of supernatural events are not considered factual, true or false.

As long as nobody accepts them they can be ignored all you like.

True.

Why? And don't say that the evidence points to that, it is not true.

No, claims of supernatural events cannot be considered true or false regardless today or over 2,000+ years ago,

So observation is not considered evidence when it comes to the supernatural.
But observation is what science is based on isn't it?

Nothing above is considered true, false or a lie based on the academic standards.

But the supernatural is used as if it is not true.

What skeptics say has no meaning in my claim that History should be based on the Oxford Academic History with a bias to the claims of one religion over another.

Nobody wants bias to the claims of one religion over another.
It would be nice if they were all treated with neutrality instead of all being seen as something to ignore and to even use against the religion of the scriptures, as with the temple destruction prophecy.

The facts of the Gospel texts and related documents have determined the gospels were not written by witnesses. Academic standards do not consider claims of supernatural events as historical facts today or over 2,000 years ago regardless. By definition if objective evidence documents an event it becomes a natural event and is documented as history.

What facts have determined that the gospels were not written by witnesses or at least that the gospel accounts came from witnesses?
These are the facts that I have heard.

 

[Colt]

True


Testimony in the gospel, and iffy if you consider the history of non-believers witnessing supposed supernatural events and converting.


Much much later than the life of Jesus, and a negative reference to the claims of believers.


As with all supernatural claims of the believers of ALL religions including the problem of absolutely nothing recorded during the life of Jesus and historians living at the time the reality of nothing necessarily happened.

Abrahamic Covenant roughly 2090 BC

Date of the Exodus roughly 1200 BC

Torah (Genesis) finalized roughly 500 BC

There were no academics or historians recording any of the Israelites history. That’s true for 99.9999% of the ancient history of all cultures.

 

[Kenny]

There are no known records of eye witnesses


You have made it clear that you are a believer in what the gospels describe about the time Jesus was alive, that is not what is under debate.

Actually, it is not my position. It does not negate nor support anything other than some of what you listed in the beginning. Jesus is considered a historical figure likely a Jewish rabbi who claimed to be the King of the Jews, was convicted by a Roman Court under Pontius Pilate and crucified.

That Gospels says differently as far as eye witnesses.

And, yes, everyone comes to a conclusion to what information is available. It is the nature of free will spiritual agents.

 

[Colt]

That Gospels says differently as far as eye witnesses.

And, yes, everyone comes to a conclusion to what information is available. It is the nature of free will spiritual agents.

And the “spiritual truth” content of Jesus’ teaching is true no matter where it came from! He knew those truths were enduring, transforming and eternal.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

That's a problem with commandments, sometimes doing what is right means breaking the general commandment about a certain thing.
The New Covenant and being guided by the Spirit of God in situations is a better way.

Why not just admit that he sinned?

 

[SkepticThinker]

so true... They should have had CNN recording while Jesus lived... after all, they should have know that you would be asking 2000 years later. Disciples recording after the fact is just inadmissible. Just because they were eye witnesses isirrelveant.

No... this is just you position - which you are free to have. It just doesn't negate what I believe or what others believed during the time Jesus was alive.

Who are you claiming as eyewitnesses?

We don't have anything written during the time Jesus was alive.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You misunderstand. I am talking about historians who say that they are neutral and do not know if Jesus rose from the dead or if the supernatural in the Bible is true, then go on and analyse the Bible as if it is not true. eg saying that the prophecy about the Temple destruction is not true, therefore the gospels must have been written after the destruction, after 70AD.
I hope you see the contradiction in that if they are meant to be neutral.

No, you misunderstand. I've just described how historians view it. How it's viewed from a logical position.

What it sounds like you think historians should be doing is just accepting everything claimed in the Bible at face value, without considering any other evidence, which of course, is not how historians do anything.

 

[SkepticThinker]

As I just posted, believing that the gospels were all written after 70AD is an example of skeptic faith in action.

Skeptics don't do history. Historians do. And they do it based on the available evidence. Why do you think the gospels were written before 70AD?

You haven't described anywhere why you think it takes faith to claim that "the gospels were written after 70AD." Perhaps you could explain here.

What does a reasonable argument mean to you?
Given that you already believe that Bible historians are being neutral when they obviously are not, reasonable for me must be different for you.

An argument that follows the rules of reason and logic. Preferably an argument with some corroborating evidence.

You still haven't explained how historians are not being neutral in their analysis of the historical events of the Bible. Just claiming their position isn't neutral doesn't make it so. And given that you don't seem to understand what "neutral" even means in the context of logic and reason, you've got some explaining to do.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes that is what I said. People in general were more superstitions and what they did not understand was attributed to the supernatural.

So what does that tell us?

Creation, how life came about.

Why do you attribute them to god?

I was saying that you say that what I believe is not true just because I believe it and so the same applies to you.

I've never said what you believe isn't true. This is part of your continued misunderstanding of how logic and reason work.
What I have said is, you claim something is true; what reason do we have to believe that?

Maybe you should read a whole section of what I write and not divide it into just sentences. You might understand what I said by looking at the whole thought bite.

I read the entirety of what you write every single time I reply to you.
But perhaps you should take your own advice because I just took the time to write out an explanation in order to help you understand how logic works, and you completely ignored it in your response to me here.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not just for myself. I have many friends with the same powers.

Which doesn't address what I said nor respond to my questions. It's just another claim. Now you have friends who can detect undetectable things. Wow, cool. How are they, and you, doing this?

No you don't.

"But we do not know what gravity is, or what matter is or what light is or what any physical thing is. We have names for them and can test them, but have no idea what they are, just what they do."


You may not. But others do.

What Is Gravity? | NASA Space Place – NASA Science for Kids

Gravity is the force by which a planet or other body draws objects toward its center.

spaceplace.nasa.gov

What is matter?

Learn how particles of all types of matter are formed and how they respond to real-world changes in conditions.

www.techtarget.com

https://andor.oxinst.com/learning/view/article/what-is-light

You know how we know this stuff? The scientific method.

Love is a spiritual thing and does not exist in the skeptic's world. What exists is molecules and interactions of groups of molecules with other groups.
Consciousness is not a real thing for a skeptic, only molecules interacting is real.

This was in response to, "But you just said god is a "living spirit." So is "spirit" an idea or is it an actual thing?
And now you claim "god is love."

So god is a "living spirit" or an "idea," like loving one's neighbour, and god is also "love." So god is just human ideas and emotions?"


Love exists within anyone who has a functional brain.

Consciousness is also a real thing, that as far as all evidence indicates, is a function of the brain.

That doesn't mean that "skeptics" don't find comfort in having loving relationships with people. Notice how your response doesn't really address my questions. All you came back with was your views on what you think skeptics think about love and consciousness.

Ideas and emotions and even consciousness are all not concrete enough to be real for a real materialistic skeptic.

Nonsense. Instead of explaining yourself, you're just telling me again what you think "skeptics" think, and getting it wrong.

But what is greater, a group of molecules or the consciousness that sees and analyses those molecules?

I don't view things in the way you claim I do. Perhaps we could stick to what's actually being said.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So the academic standard is based on a lack of belief in the supernatural but belief in the supernatural is not allowed even if the scriptures in question claim evidence of the supernatural.
That evidence cannot be accepted even if it claims to be eyewitness evidence.
But believing those claims are false can be accepted.



That is the accusation of lying, saying that the witness accounts in the scriptures are not true.



I propose that the ancient religious writings be treated as if true until shown to be not true.

I'm sorry to tell you, but that's not rational or reasonable. It leads us to believe in all sorts of things that aren't true.

I'm starting to get the feeling that you don't really care if what you believe is actually true. You just want to believe it, regardless.
Because people who want to believe in as many true things as possible while not believing in as many false things as possible, wouldn't be using that as their methodology.

How do you know that?
The idea that the gospels were written second or third hand comes from the idea that the supernatural is not true and the prophecy about the destruction of the Temple had to have been written after 70AD.
So you (and others) use the "neutral" presupposition of historians that the supernatural is not true to date the gospels and show that they cannot be witness accounts because they were written so late.
Prophetic evidence is denied and the prophecy is called a lie by the subjective lack of belief of academia.
But the subjective belief is called bias even though it shows that the synoptic gospels were written within about 30 years of Jesus death.
And then all the skeptics come along and say "Hey look the consensus of the historians is that the gospels were written late in the first century by people who did not know Jesus and only the biased apologists say they were written by witnesses."

 

[SkepticThinker]

That Gospels says differently as far as eye witnesses.

And, yes, everyone comes to a conclusion to what information is available. It is the nature of free will spiritual agents.

Which gospel claims to be an eyewitness account? Of what?

My Bible says that the gospels are anonymous.

 

[Brian2]

Why not just admit that he sinned?

OK He sinned from the pov of the Pharisees who were judging Him on their interpretations and additions to the commandments.

 

[Brian2]

No, you misunderstand. I've just described how historians view it. How it's viewed from a logical position.

What it sounds like you think historians should be doing is just accepting everything claimed in the Bible at face value, without considering any other evidence, which of course, is not how historians do anything.

Historians say that logically they do not know if prophecy is real and so they can reject prophecies in the Bible and say they were written after the fact.
Then they can use that to show that the gospels must have been written after 70AD.
It's all logical, yes, and neutral to the idea of the supernatural and to the history written about the Bible, no.