• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

Brian2

Veteran Member
It can stand all scientific scrutiny. Of course, neither science nor religion can answer the question 'Why there is anything (or God) at all?'

Because science, which can study material phenomena, cannot find a spirit God, that does not mean that your Hinduism can stand all scientific scrutiny. Science says "We don't know" and that is what you also should say. If you go beyond that, then you are bringing in belief that has not been scrutinised.

Why does God exist? Hmmm, I don't know but consider it a bonus that God does exist and that He decided to create us and fix the problems that have shown themselves since creation.
Science is still working on how we came to be, without a God doing it.

"Similarly, it's legitimate to ask why non-existence or "nothingness" is impossible, even if that is the case." Why there is anything at all - Wikipedia
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Because science, which can study material phenomena, cannot find a spirit God, that does not mean that your Hinduism can stand all scientific scrutiny. Science says "We don't know" and that is what you also should say. If you go beyond that, then you are bringing in belief that has not been scrutinised.

Why does God exist? Hmmm, I don't know but consider it a bonus that God does exist and that He decided to create us and fix the problems that have shown themselves since creation.
Science is still working on how we came to be, without a God doing it.
Does a God exist? How would you show that? How would you know that?
 

rocala

Well-Known Member
One thing I would say is that for point 3, we do have Paul's first person account of his experiences that attest to them. So that would be the strongest of the three in terms of evidence.
Some years ago, an aunt of mine saw my grandfather and assumed that he was making a surprise visit. It was only when he vanished into thin air that she realized that this was not a normal occurrence. She made some phone calls and was told of his death.

Various interpretations of her experience were made, but nobody considered the possibility that he had risen from the grave. His grave was, and remains, undisturbed.

To experience the presence, by whatever senses, of another being, has nothing whatsoever to do with physical resurrection.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
all I am saying is that Liconas argument (from the op) is good enough to justify the resurection as a probable event, unless you afirm that the existance of god is impossible (or very unlikelly)
Licona is not doing history he is doing apologetics.
The OP doesn't argue for a resurrection, it argues for beliefs of some people 2000 years ago. Over 1 million people witnessed some miracle from Sai Baba in the early 1900's and believed he was a deity.

I saw Licona debate Carrier twice and Ehrman. He gets proven wrong and goes "well I don't agree (with facts and logic) so let's move on".
I can timestamp this.


Paul and those who came before him were part of a huge trend in Judaism. We can read in Josephus that there were Joshua Messiah's all over the place during this time.
The translation to this is Jesus Christ.
They were ALL apocalyptic preachers claiming th eend times were coming soon. The Jesus of the NT is also believed to originally have been the same.
It's actually IN SCRIPTURE. The end will come in this generation, you people in this generation will see it.
Of course they were wrong and the apologetics had to take over but you know what the text really says.

This myth came from Persia. After several centuries of Jewish religious elites saying "I think God told me we are also getting a messiah" this movement started happening.

The Jewish Encyclopedia talks about may messiah figures but Carrier has specific examples of mentions of "Joseph Messiahs" as well.

These highly trained Greek writers were trained specifically in historical fiction and that is Mark.

Paul briefly mentions a shipwreck in his letters and another writer was definitely like "Hey, I can do a shipwreck narrative" and wrote the most fictive story ever, borrowing things from many sources but some very obvious from the Odyssey, even following the sequence of events exactly.
Dennis McDonald writes about this. Acts also uses all of the key features of all shipwreck fiction of that time. A subject for another time.


Anyway, yes God is not demonstrated. A general deism is possible but there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever for any theism.

This God, Yahweh can be demonstrated to be a typical Near Eastern Deity. Genesis is a remake of Mesopotamian myth.

Later writings about Yahweh from Aquinas, Origen, Tertullian, Agustine, Boethius, Anslem are all

taking Greco-Roman moral philosophy and theology and delivering it to the masses, even though they are unaware.

If you want historical evidence of that a Pastor/historian lectures on it:
Plato and Christianity



But theism has no evidence that can be demonstrated to be from a theistic deity. Chance is generally what is used as proof, a healing of an illness, a tornado not killing a mother/daughter.
But basic probabability accounts perfectly for those things. Because other mothers and children do die in tornados and others with disease do die, at a predictable rate. The survivors cannot see the big picture. Creationists cannot see evolution because they thing a rock is supposed to become a fish and a monkey a human. They get people with mis-information.








I think there is evidence for a god………… but even without any evidence it doest follow that the existence of god is less probable than 50%.
What evidence is there for theism that can only be explained with a deity?




There is no evidence for intelligent life in other planets, but from that fact it doesn’t follow that there is no intelligent life in other planets, nor that the probability is less than 50%, nor that that “no aliens” should be the default position.

Because there is intelligent life on ONE PLANET ALREADY. There are NO GODS to demonstrate?





If you want to move the wager in favor of “atheism” you need an argument that justifies such a movement in the wager
Uh,m no argument for theism comes close to working.
Deism is as nonsensical as the secular ideas like infinite regress.
Deism implies God, an undivisible substance. Which means materialism is actually true. God would be an atheist making that true.
There are already paradoxes but why would an entity, undivisible, alone, infinite, perfect, atheist be the foundation of reality. We see unconscious creative forces at work. A conscious mind is not needed. Some paradoxes cannot be solved with or without a God.

These ideas came from Greco-Roman philosophy put onto a Near Eastern deity, they evolved over many centuries. They do not represent the truth but a vast variety of thought.

You do not have to justify not believing in Zeus. Yahweh gets moved over to that group and you have atheism. Non belief in myths. Nothing to do with deism.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Because science, which can study material phenomena, cannot find a spirit God, that does not mean that your Hinduism can stand all scientific scrutiny. Science says "We don't know" and that is what you also should say. If you go beyond that, then you are bringing in belief that has not been scrutinised.

Why does God exist? Hmmm, I don't know but consider it a bonus that God does exist and that He decided to create us and fix the problems that have shown themselves since creation.
Science is still working on how we came to be, without a God doing it.
You do not know why God exists, you do not know whether he exists or not, you have no evidence to show us.
Science and my Hindu view accepts that there are things for which we have no answer. You too have no answer for that apart from your un-evidenced belief. Yeah, we (I mean scientists) are working on that. Answers may be available only to future generations.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
so what is wrong with the arguments provided by Licona in support of that point?
My comment had been that I rejected the claim that, "Very soon after his death, his disciples reported having experiences which they interpreted as the risen Jesus appearing to them, both individually and in groups."

I didn't read anything from Licona. I've explained before that I am not interested in reading links unless they are provided to amplify or support an argument made in these threads. That claim wasn't sufficient to justify researching Licona's argument. I'm fairly certain that even if there were witnesses that claimed to see a resurrection, Licona couldn't know that fact any more than any of us can, nor does he know what they actually saw or how they concluded that a dead man had been resurrected rather than some fraud or magic trick perpetrated on them. Yet he's relying on it being true and good evidence of a resurrection.

If you want others to see Licona's argument on that point, summarize it yourself here in a few sentences and explain why you believe he was correct.
Violating the laws of physics would only be a problem if you show that the existence of a god is impossible or very unlikely.
Disagree.

Violating the laws of physics is not known to occur. Claiming that it did once at a particular time and place with no better evidence than scripture is a non-starter. Citing that it can't be shown to be impossible isn't reason to believe that it occurred. As I explained, an alien abduction of Jesus can't be shown to be impossible, either, and we know that technological civilization and space travel are possible. If there were actually witnesses claiming to see a resurrection and they actually saw something that could be mistaken for one, and it wasn't an ancient David Copperfield's (magician) illusion, then alien abduction and resurrection both become more likely, but resurrection is always at the bottom of any list of candidate hypotheses for why those scriptures say what they say, because it violates the known laws of physics and requires the existence of gods and supernaturalism, both major violations of Occam's parsimony principle.
I can do the same with naturalism. “There is no sufficient evidence for naturalism, therefore naturalism is rejected by default…………..therefore “supernaturalism” wins. I am using the same type of “logic” than you,
The evidence supports a naturalistic view of reality. There is none supporting supernaturalism beyond the bare, unfalsifiable claim that it exists, and the weak argument that it cannot be proved that it doesn't. Supernaturalists try to tell us that there may more to reality than nature, but that's not good enough. They still need evidence to support their claims, which they consider an unfair requirement. But this is what protects the critical thinker from collecting false and unfalsifiable beliefs like a belief in gods and supernaturalism. Once you do that, you use your reasoning faculty not to reason, but to rationalize. One engages in so-called motivated thinking, which leads one where he wants to go rather than to where the evidence points using fallacy-free (valid) reasoning.
There is no sufficient evidence for a god, therefore no-god is the default position………..therefore no-god wins. Honestly don’t you see any flaws with this logic?
I would word it as, lacking sufficient evidence to support belief in gods according to the laws of inference, one should not believe gods exist.

I see that you didn't take my request to "start addressing my objections. I've made them a few times each, and you ignore them while repeating an already rejected argument. You can start with this post. Please address every claim made in it. Really, Leroy. That's the deal. Look at the five or six answers in THIS POST and address them all. Tell me why you consider them incorrect or irrelevant, or don't bother answering. I really don't want to hear what you believe instead again."

Here is a list of comments from that post that you failed to address:
  • "Why are you telling me that if one has different bedrock beliefs than I do he'll come to different conclusions?"
  • "Disagree. You're making a positive claim that something is equally likely to be true as untrue if it's unknown which it is. Both parents carry the same recessive gene. We don't know if the fetus has the trait yet. The chances are not 50/50 that it does."
  • "You argue that others cannot make estimates of a low likeliness, yet you would set the default position at 50% with the same information."
  • "One need only rejects god claims for lack of sufficient supporting evidence to justify belief. No further argument is necessary."
  • "You call John and Paul independent because they are separate people. That's not enough. So are any pair of witnesses."

I consider all of those matters resolved. You've accepted them all without rebuttal or even comment, which is the end of any debate.

Can you explain that posting etiquette? Why did you choose to deny my request? You're not blind. You're fluent in English and literate. You don't seem to be here to troll. Yet my words flew by you without apparent effect. I don't expect you to ever cooperate, which is a common phenomenon with the faithful and a mystery to me, but there needs to be something in it for me to continue with you, and addressing your same arguments already rebutted while you ignore those rebuttals isn't any more appealing than reading Lincona. I don't expect answers to the two questions heading this paragraph, but don't understand how or why this happens.
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
Well, hallucinations would indeed be a good explanation if we were talking about a few isolated cases but the second fact of the historical bedrock is that some of these experiences were group experiences. Now group hallucinations are a thing very few have voiced their support for as they go against the basic characteristic of a hallucination which is that its an internal experience unique to the individual. To have groups of people reporting the same thing and to say that is a hallucination would go against what is known about hallucinations and thus fails the plausibility criteria.
Group delusion is possible. The fact that there are many people who strongly believe in the silliness of Trump proves that.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah rising from the physical dead is against Sign of Jonah, I must say, as I understand?
Right?

Regards
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?

Regards
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
You do not know why God exists, you do not know whether he exists or not, you have no evidence to show us.
Science and my Hindu view accepts that there are things for which we have no answer. You too have no answer for that apart from your un-evidenced belief. Yeah, we (I mean scientists) are working on that. Answers may be available only to future generations.

I have no answers for many things and accept that, of course.
I believe many things that I have no proof for.
I do not know why God exists.
I do not know whether He exists.
I have plenty of evidence for the existence of a creator and for the existence of the Bible God.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
I have no answers for many things and accept that, of course.
I believe many things that I have no proof for.
I do not know why God exists.
I do not know whether He exists.
I have plenty of evidence for the existence of a creator and for the existence of the Bible God.
1. You have the Bible, which you say has all the answers.
2. That is not a good thing to do. Do you believe in FSM, and if not, why?
3., 4. and 5. Contradicting statements.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
1. You have the Bible, which you say has all the answers.

I don't say that.

2. That is not a good thing to do. Do you believe in FSM, and if not, why?

You believe there is no God and you have no proof of that.
I don't believe in the FSM and have no evidence for the FSM, not even the sort of evidence I have for God, what you might say is silly evidence or even say is not evidence.

3., 4. and 5. Contradicting statements.

No they aren't contradicting.
I can believe in God and have evidence for His existence without knowing He exists.
How does not knowing why God exists contradict anything?
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I don't believe in the FSM and have no evidence for the FSM, not even the sort of evidence I have for God, what you might say is silly evidence or even say is not evidence.
The evidence for the Christian god and the FSM are the same - the universe and the life in it, which are far too complex to have arisen without an intelligent designer. What's your argument for that being the Christian god rather than the FSM?
I can believe in God and have evidence for His existence without knowing He exists.
That's an odd relationship between evidence and knowledge. Evidence is how we know what's true about the world. If your evidence supports your belief, it's knowledge. If it doesn't, then it's belief by faith.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
My comment had been that I rejected the claim that, "Very soon after his death, his disciples reported having experiences which they interpreted as the risen Jesus appearing to them, both individually and in groups."

I didn't read anything from Licona. I've explained before that I am not interested in reading links unless they are provided to amplify or support an argument made in these threads. That claim wasn't sufficient to justify researching Licona's argument. I'm fairly certain that even if there were witnesses that claimed to see a resurrection, Licona couldn't know that fact any more than any of us can, nor does he know what they actually saw or how they concluded that a dead man had been resurrected rather than some fraud or magic trick perpetrated on them. Yet he's relying on it being true and good evidence of a resurrection.
(I Will respond to this post in 3 or 4 independent comments) and whithin few days.......

Well that atleast some of the disciples saw something that they interpreted as having seen the risen jesus is an uncontrovertial fact accepted by most scholars.

Obviously not all scholars claim a physical resurection, but that the disciples *saw something * that they interpreted as having seen the risen jesus (perhaps a dream or a hallucination) is accepted by most scholars.

Scholars accept this Mainly for 3 reasons :

1 we have the testimony of Paul, who reported 6 aperances of the risen Jesus (+his own) Paul is someone who knew the witnesses of these apperances. So he had access to first hand testimony.

2 some of the aperances that Paul reports where independently attested by other sources. The aperance to Paul is reported in Acts, the aperance to the 12 disiples (except for Judas) in John and Luke, the aperance to Peter in Luke ....+ We also have independent witness to Galilean appearances in Mark, Matthew, and John, as well as to the women in Matthew and John

3 explanatory power: the apperancess explain why Paul and James converted to Christianity...., Why the apostoles had a stronger faith after Jesus died, and it explains why the early church flurished so fast , ........... from the point of view of a first century Jew, Jesus was a failed messiah, he didnt meet the mesianic expectatations from that time, a crusified meassiah was an absurd and self refuting idea from their point of view. .... so unless something extraordinary happened after his dead, the flurishment of this new church would have had no sense. ..... the aperances explain all these three mysteries..

A) Paul and James converted because they saw something that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus.

B) Peter and the disciples had more faith than ever before because they saw something that they interpreted as having seen the risen jesus

C) the early church flurished because thausans of people granted such apperances.

If you reject the historicity of the apperances , what other alternative explanation do you suggest for points A B and C.?

Even Gert L¸demann, the leading German critic of the resurrection, himself admits, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.” Gerd L¸demann, What Really Happened to Jesus?, trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p. 80.


So rejecting the historicity of the apperances requires you to explain, why you think that so many top scholars are wrong. What do you know that they are missing ?

 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
(I Will respond to this post in 3 or 4 independent comments) and within few days.......

Well that at least some of the disciples saw something that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus is an incontravertible fact accepted by most scholars.

Obviously not all scholars claim a physical resurection, but that the disciples *saw something * that they interpreted as having seen the risen jesus (perhaps a dream or a hallucination) is accepted by most scholars.

Scholars accept this Mainly for 3 reasons :

1 we have the testimony of Paul, who reported 6 aperances of the risen Jesus (+his own) Paul is someone who knew the witnesses of these apperances. So he had access to first hand testimony.

2 some of the aperances that Paul reports where independently attested by other sources. The aperance to Paul is reported in Acts, the aperance to the 12 disiples (except for Judas) in John and Luke, the aperance to Peter in Luke ....+ We also have independent witness to Galilean appearances in Mark, Matthew, and John, as well as to the women in Matthew and John

3 explanatory power: the apperancess explain why Paul and James converted to Christianity...., Why the apostoles had a stronger faith after Jesus died, and it explains why the early church flurished so fast , ........... from the point of view of a first century Jew, Jesus was a failed messiah, he didnt meet the mesianic expectatations from that time, a crusified meassiah was an absurd and self refuting idea from their point of view. .... so unless something extraordinary happened after his dead, the flurishment of this new church would have had no sense. ..... the aperances explain all these three mysteries..

A) Paul and James converted because they saw something that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus.

B) Peter and the disciples had more faith than ever before because they saw something that they interpreted as having seen the risen jesus

C) the early church flurished because thausans of people granted such apperances.

If you reject the historicity of the apperances , what other alternative explanation do you suggest for points A B and C.?

Even Gert L¸demann, the leading German critic of the resurrection, himself admits, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.” Gerd L¸demann, What Really Happened to Jesus?, trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p. 80.


So rejecting the historicity of the apperances requires you to explain, why you think that so many top scholars are wrong. What do you know that they are missing ?
Why did you think I would be interested in that? I've already rebutted claims that any of that equates to a resurrection occurring more than once, which rebuttals you ignored and merely repeated your beliefs again unchanged.

I guess you didn't see any of this from my last two posts to you (emphasis added):
I see that you didn't take my request to "start addressing my objections. I've made them a few times each, and you ignore them while repeating an already rejected argument. You can start with this post. Please address every claim made in it. Really, Leroy. That's the deal. Look at the five or six answers in THIS POST and address them all. Tell me why you consider them incorrect or irrelevant, or don't bother answering. I really don't want to hear what you believe instead again."
Here is a list of comments from that post that you failed to address:
  • "Why are you telling me that if one has different bedrock beliefs than I do he'll come to different conclusions?"
  • "Disagree. You're making a positive claim that something is equally likely to be true as untrue if it's unknown which it is. Both parents carry the same recessive gene. We don't know if the fetus has the trait yet. The chances are not 50/50 that it does."
  • "You argue that others cannot make estimates of a low likeliness, yet you would set the default position at 50% with the same information."
  • "One need only rejects god claims for lack of sufficient supporting evidence to justify belief. No further argument is necessary."
  • "You call John and Paul independent because they are separate people. That's not enough. So are any pair of witnesses."
I consider all of those matters resolved. You've accepted them all without rebuttal or even comment, which is the end of any debate.
Can you explain that posting etiquette? Why did you choose to deny my request? You're not blind. You're fluent in English and literate. You don't seem to be here to troll. Yet my words flew by you without apparent effect. I don't expect you to ever cooperate, which is a common phenomenon with the faithful and a mystery to me, but there needs to be something in it for me to continue with you, and addressing your same arguments already rebutted while you ignore those rebuttals isn't any more appealing than reading Lincona. I don't expect answers to the two questions heading this paragraph, but don't understand how or why this happens.

Sorry, amigo, but this is the end of this discussion. You've made your case and I've rebutted it, which rebuttals you've ignored only to repeat already answered claims. Nothing new has happened since then, and you steadfastly refuse to cooperate with me and give me what I told I need from you to continue, so I see no point. Thanks for your time. Next time, see if you can't cooperate in a discussion. You just preach. You talk without listening. That will always lead to an end of the discussion.
 
Last edited:

Brian2

Veteran Member
The evidence for the Christian god and the FSM are the same - the universe and the life in it, which are far too complex to have arisen without an intelligent designer. What's your argument for that being the Christian god rather than the FSM?

I have seen no historical books about the FSM and what it has done. All I hear is mocking comments from skeptics whose critical thinking has let them down and who claim the evidence for their invented FSM is the same as for the Bible God.

That's an odd relationship between evidence and knowledge. Evidence is how we know what's true about the world. If your evidence supports your belief, it's knowledge. If it doesn't, then it's belief by faith.

Your critical thinking has let you down here also.
Evidence points to the truth of a particular conclusion and does not necessarily show it to be true.
And yes, my beliefs are faith in Jesus, and the evidence supports that faith imo.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I have seen no historical books about the FSM and what it has done.
Me, neither. As with all other gods, all the Pastafarians have is their mythology:

Blessed be the Flying Spaghetti Monster, born of extra virgin olive oil, delivered by Little Caesarean (in 30 minutes or less), cast out of the Olive Garden. Then, snagged by a giant twirling fork wielded by the Antipasto, Our Savory was flung onto a wall where he stuck and dried for our salivation. Cheese's Crust, how grated thou art! May there be pizza on earth and gouda will toward men. Ramen.

I don't believe that, either, and for the same reason.
All I hear is mocking comments from skeptics whose critical thinking has let them down and who claim the evidence for their invented FSM is the same as for the Bible God.
The evidence for the FSM is just as good, yes - the universe and assorted untestable claims.
my beliefs are faith in Jesus, and the evidence supports that faith
Only if you bring your own rules of reason to connect your evidence to the conclusions you say are derived from it. If one uses the rules for interpreting evidence used in law and science, you claim of sufficient support to justify your belief fails.

I grant you your faith, but not the right to call it justified, reasoned, or sufficiently evidenced belief. When you do that, you will be judged by the standards of those who actually do use standard reasoning applied to evidence to decide what is true about the world, and corrected where you violate them. As I've indicated to a few apologists lately, I can't imagine anybody minding you saying that you believe by faith. They might tell you why they don't, but not that you shouldn't. I don't mind that you do, but please stay in your own lane:

1690745536044.png
 
Last edited:
Top