Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[Brian2]

Citation required.

Which "religious" belief is masquerading as "science" in your opinion?

Don't forget to also add supporting evidence in your answer.

Theories and hypothesese are believed religiously as if they are knowledge.
This is like the religiously held belief that the synoptics were written after 70AD by people who did not know Jesus or witness anything. It is not knowledge. It is religiously held beliefs by people who deny holding such beliefs.

 

[Colt]

There's no such thing.

Sure there is! It's based on the unprovable doctrines of doubt! Atheist often see themselves as a "special case" having some special angle when in truth they are just dedicated to a type of belief.

 

[Brian2]

By sheer accident, sure.
Like a broken clock, which is also correct twice a day.

Here's the thing though.... if the thing is believed on faith, how could you even find out if it's true?
You would require verifiable evidence for that... and if you have that, then you would have no need for faith....

So yea... Thanks for playing.

I don't need verifiable evidence for anything, you are hung up on verifiable evidence.
I live trusting in the Lord.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Theories and hypothesese are believed religiously as if they are knowledge.

You are just repeating your claim.
I asked for specific examples + evidence to justify your claim concerning those examples.

If you don't have anything aside from these vague empty claims, then just say so.

This is like the religiously held belief that the synoptics were written after 70AD by people who did not know Jesus or witness anything. It is not knowledge. It is religiously held beliefs by people who deny holding such beliefs.

1. what makes this a "religiously held" belief?
2. what is your evidence that this is actually a belief that matches those criteria
3. who are the people that hold such "belief" according to those yet-to-be-defined criteria?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure there is!

No, there isn't.

It's based on the unprovable doctrines of doubt!

Que?

Atheist often see themselves as a "special case" having some special angle when in truth they are just dedicated to a type of belief.

What on earth are you rambling about?
Why can't you people stop with these vague say-nothing statements and get to the point clearly?

 

[Colt]

No, there isn't.




Que?


What on earth are you rambling about?
Why can't you people stop with these vague say-nothing statements and get to the point clearly?

Your faith is that there is no God, life invented itself etc. You promote your faith hear on a religious forum. Its not at all complicated.

 

[Brian2]

You are just repeating your claim.
I asked for specific examples + evidence to justify your claim concerning those examples.

If you don't have anything aside from these vague empty claims, then just say so.

I repeated because I was trying to show more clearly what I meant.
You said, Which "religious" belief is masquerading as "science" in your opinion?
No religious beliefs are masquerading as science. Religiously held beliefs in parts of science are masquerading as scientifically held beliefs.

1. what makes this a "religiously held" belief?
2. what is your evidence that this is actually a belief that matches those criteria
3. who are the people that hold such "belief" according to those yet-to-be-defined criteria?

Actually I change my mind. That belief is held because historians who believe that prophecy is not true end up concluding that the synoptics must be written after 70AD.
So for many people it is the fallacy of trusting in authority. They might not realise that it is a religiously held belief. But I guess you probably realise the reason people think the synoptics were written after 70AD and so you should know that this is a religiously held belief.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

They do? Who? Where?

Then they can use that to show that the gospels must have been written after 70AD.

How? You really think that's all they do?

What's your methodology? Just believe everything until someone proves it wrong?

It's all logical, yes, and neutral to the idea of the supernatural and to the history written about the Bible, no.

This was in response to, "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. "

Nothing about that is logical.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So are you saying that the Oxford historical academic standard has to be correct and what it shows us as being history is always correct? I would say it is not neutral about the supernatural and can lead to us being told things by historians that aren't true.

This was in response to, "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."

Believing every claim you've ever heard at face value until it's proven wrong is a great way to believe in all kinds of untrue things. It's not for people who want to believe in as many true things as possible while not believing in as many false things as possible. I don't know how many times I have to point this out.

Please notice how you didn't address my point at all in your response.

 

[SkepticThinker]

But you already know the answers to the questions you ask. We do not detect a God who is undetectable to science, by science, we detect this God in the way He gave us, faith.

That makes zero sense. As already pointed out by myself and others.

Ideas change in science. I seem to remember seeing where science was saying that gravity is not a force but is a bending of the space time continuum. No matter. The thing is that we have no idea about the essence of what gravity, matter, time etc etc are but you demand a definition for God.

You're moved the goal post from "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"

To ...

"we have no idea about the essence of what gravity, matter time, etc. "

Whatever that means.

Yes, I "demand" a definition for the thing you're claiming the existence of. Crazy, I know!
I can give you a definition of gravity. Of matter. Of time. Etc. Why can't you define the things you claim to exist?

Well we like to think we know I guess.

Scientists can demonstrate to you what it is. Unlike you and your supernatural beliefs.

So you believe in things that science cannot detect but not in the supernatural or God because they are undetectable by science.

This was in response to, "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."



My response:

Huh? Where did I say I "believe in things that science cannot detect?"

 

[SkepticThinker]

What does it tell you?

It tells me that human beings make up all kinds of supernatural things in some attempt to explain the things they experience.

Faith.

Yet another reason to show how useless faith is and how anything can be believed on it.

You said that my belief in something does not make it real. I agree. I then said that your belief in something also does not make it real.
Sheesh it does not even matter now, it was so far back in the discussion that the point is lost.



I guess you have no reason in to believe it with your world view and lack of faith.



I don't think I ignored it, and I probably continued to try to show my logic in relation to the topic. But we can't keep saying the same things forever and expect a different result.

You did not reply to it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't need verifiable evidence for anything, you are hung up on verifiable evidence.
I live trusting in the Lord.

Then you are not a person who cares in believing as many true things as possible while not believing as many false things as possible.

You want to believe what you want to believe, because you want to believe it. Which is fine. But don't pretend you're being logical with any of this. You've just basically admitted that you aren't.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I repeated because I was trying to show more clearly what I meant.
You said, Which "religious" belief is masquerading as "science" in your opinion?
No religious beliefs are masquerading as science. Religiously held beliefs in parts of science are masquerading as scientifically held beliefs.



Actually I change my mind. That belief is held because historians who believe that prophecy is not true end up concluding that the synoptics must be written after 70AD.
So for many people it is the fallacy of trusting in authority. They might not realise that it is a religiously held belief. But I guess you probably realise the reason people think the synoptics were written after 70AD and so you should know that this is a religiously held belief.

Instead of answering the questions and providing examples, you just repeated the same claims over again.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The story says that demons entered the pigs, when they asked Jesus to send them into the pigs, and so it must be the demons that led them off the cliff.

Do you think the swineherd was cool with this?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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

He sinned. He broke commandments. He was punished for his actions by execution, though under Roman law. Job was sinless. He didn’t kill or assault anyone. He broke no laws. Jesus did. He sinned repeatedly, both stated biblical laws and stuff I consider a sin today, like racism. I grew weary of always being held to a higher standard than God or Jesus.

 

[YoursTrue]

But you already know the answers to the questions you ask. We do not detect a God who is undetectable to science, by science, we detect this God in the way He gave us, faith.



Ideas change in science. I seem to remember seeing where science was saying that gravity is not a force but is a bending of the space time continuum. No matter. The thing is that we have no idea about the essence of what gravity, matter, time etc etc are but you demand a definition for God.



Well we like to think we know I guess.



So you believe in things that science cannot detect but not in the supernatural or God because they are undetectable by science.

That is why I read certain scientific terms in explanation and say uh oh I don't want to get a stomach ache...because yes, gravity is

The urgency was to spread the gospel, true. Then the true gospel had to be preserved in writing.

Certainly. Why would the disciples keep the occurrence secret? They wouldn't.

 

[paarsurrey]

Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus​

• #1,620

One can't see a dream on one's own, it was such an overwhelming dream that she (Pilate's wife) did tell about it to Pilate, must be from the holy spirit, and Gospel mentions it, right?

Regards

The Second Coming 1835-1908 says:

Quote. "When Pilate presided at his court, his wife sent word to him saying,

Have nothing to do with that just man (don’t seek to have him killed) for I have suffered many things in a dream because of him. See Matthew 27:19.9
So, this angel, whom the wife of Pilate saw in her dream, would have us and all fair-minded people believe, that God had never intended for Jesus to die on the cross.
Ever since creation, it has never happened that God should reveal to a person in a dream that a particular thing would happen in a certain way, and still that thing should fail to happen.
For example, Matthew says that an angel of the Lord came to Joseph in a dream and said:
Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. (Matthew 2:13)
Can anyone imagine that Jesus could have been killed in Egypt?
The dream of Pilate’s wife was similarly a part of divine design, which could never fail in its objective.
Just as the possibility of Jesus being put to death during the journey to Egypt was against the specific promise of God, so here too it is unthinkable that the angel of God should appear to Pilate’s wife and point out to her that if Jesus died on the cross it would spell disaster for her, and yet the angel’s appearance should go in vain,
and Jesus should be allowed to suffer death on the cross". Unquote
Page-26
"Jesus in India"

https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Jesus-in-India.pdf

 

[Eli G]

Yes, it seems that the dream Pilate's wife had was of divine origin. The question is: did God want Pilate to release Jesus?

I think that this was not the purpose of the dream, because Jesus had known for a long time that that day would come. In fact, three days before he had said this to some of Herod's envoys:

Luc. 13:32 (...) Go and tell that fox, ‘Look! I am casting out demons and healing people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will be finished.'33 Nevertheless, I must go on today, tomorrow, and the following day, because it cannot be that a prophet should be put to death outside of Jerusalem.

It is more likely that God's intention was to create resistance in Pilate, so that he would insist on the Jews, which would make them more or less guilty of the killing that was to come. Several times Pilate tried to free Jesus, until this happened:

Matt. 27:24 Seeing that it did no good but, rather, an uproar was arising, Pilate took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying: “I am innocent of the blood of this man. You yourselves must see to it.” 25 At that all the people said in answer: “Let his blood come upon us and upon our children.” 26 Then he released Bar·abʹbas to them, but he had Jesus whipped and handed him over to be executed on the stake.

 

[Brian2]

He sinned. He broke commandments. He was punished for his actions by execution, though under Roman law. Job was sinless. He didn’t kill or assault anyone. He broke no laws. Jesus did. He sinned repeatedly, both stated biblical laws and stuff I consider a sin today, like racism. I grew weary of always being held to a higher standard than God or Jesus.

Humans have to be humans and cannot help but doing what is not considered to be right. We (unlike Jesus and God in the OT) do stuff that cannot be seen as loving no matter how you frame it or interpret it. So it's good that this is recognised by God and forgiveness is offered.

 

[Brian2]

Do you think the swineherd was cool with this?

A swine herd being cool with something? Hmmm.
Pigs are not people. What they are is a form of life that is a long way under humans and the creator does with the creation what is appropriate.
iow we can't judge Jesus for sending the demons into the pigs.