Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[Brian2]

If there is no time, God can’t say let there be light because there is before He said it, while He said it, and after He said it.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Presuming time began then, God said, "Let there be light" during time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

But you can't see that you make the same mistake, right?

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

Clearly, we have different operating definitions of "explanatory power".
Or we have different understandings of the word "explanation".

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

/facepalm

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?

Why would I agree to such stupidity?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The third option is that you are wrong. I choose that one.

Then you are ignoring the blatant self-contradiction.
If you start from a base assumption that potentially impacts pretty much everything, then you can't say that it's not going to impact anything or most things.

It's one or the other.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I suppose skeptics/atheists deny having faith and so if that is accepted by the forum rule makers then skeptics/atheists can never be in breach of the no proselytyzing rule.

It has nothing to do with any forum rules.

What defines me as an atheist, is that I'm not buying what theists are trying to sell.
I don't have anything to sell myself. I'm just not buying what theists are selling.
Because I think it's a scam, to stay in the buyer/seller analogy...

But without beliefs skeptics/atheists certainly have a lot to preach about to those who say they have faith.

I have lots of beliefs. Many of which are shared with theists as they aren't about gods and supernatural things.
What defines my as an atheist is that I don't hold religious / theistic beliefs.

Atheism is defined by disbelief in theistic religion. Not by belief in something else.

I'm sorry if that is so hard for you to comprehend.

I already did that, but you decided to break up my answer (which included that) and get me to answer it again.

You did not.

Verifiable advice does not exist about some things.

Which demonstrably real things don't have verifiable evidence?

I suppose preaching your non existent faith is OK.

You might want to look up the meaning of the word "preaching".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God has had an impact on me and millions of others. You must be living in a different world.

Gods you don't believe to be real, and which are mutually exclusive to yours, also had impact on millions.
So clearly entities don't need to exist to have impact on people.

What has impact on these people is not the entity. It's the idea of / the belief in that entity that has the impact.
Kind of like a placebo.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evidently the opposite idea has greatly influenced the minds of those who adopt it... The world has become a much worse place to live in since atheists have been trying to promote their philosophy of survival of the fittest.

First, obviously the bolded part is just a dehumanizing lie.

Secondly, you might want to review societal health indexes of the nations around the world and compare of they differ between humanistic secular nations where freethinking is allowed / motivated as opposed where such is not and / or where religiosity is higher.

You'll find a correlation in the data that flies in the face of your silly statement above.

 

[Brian2]

Then you are ignoring the blatant self-contradiction.
If you start from a base assumption that potentially impacts pretty much everything, then you can't say that it's not going to impact anything or most things.

It's one or the other.

Brian2 said: 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.

You have said nothing about you viewing things through a different belief.
Do you think that your world view has an effect on the answer to 1+1 since you also would see everything through the eyes of your beliefs?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You have said nothing about you viewing things through a different belief.

Because my point wasn't about that. It was about the part where you say that on the one hand, you use your faith as a starting point, as goggles through which you see everything, and on the other you say that it doesn't impact most things in your life.

Something doesn't add up there, it seems ot me.

Do you think that your world view has an effect on the answer to 1+1 since you also would see everything through the eyes of your beliefs?

Interesting.
I would say yes and I would also consider some other examples.

Examples like
- abortion
- euthanasia
- homosexuality
- stem cell research
- evolutionary biology
- evolutionary psychology
- plenty of sciences involved in, or who make use of, dating mechanisms
- psychiatry / neurology
- ...

You know. The evidence based things that are "debated" and "contested" by theists who think their faith trumps scientific evidence.
Who use a certain religious framework as an assumed starting point.

 

[Brian2]

It has nothing to do with any forum rules.

What defines me as an atheist, is that I'm not buying what theists are trying to sell.
I don't have anything to sell myself. I'm just not buying what theists are selling.
Because I think it's a scam, to stay in the buyer/seller analogy...

Yes that is what I said about atheism. You say you have no beliefs/faith.
But the scam imo is to say you have no beliefs that you are trying to sell.

I have lots of beliefs. Many of which are shared with theists as they aren't about gods and supernatural things.
What defines my as an atheist is that I don't hold religious / theistic beliefs.

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

Atheism is defined by disbelief in theistic religion. Not by belief in something else.

I'm sorry if that is so hard for you to comprehend.

It's not hard to comprehend, but it is just a scam.

Which demonstrably real things don't have verifiable evidence?

So you say that only things that have verifiable evidence are real and can only be demonstrated only through their verifiable evidence.
Then you ask, "Which demonstrably real things don't have verifiable evidence?"
But you make the error in your thinking when you think that only verifiable things are real.
And of course you don't even believe this yourself, when it comes to most unverifiable things, even if you like to use it against the existence of God and the supernatural.

You might want to look up the meaning of the word "preaching".

I already know, just as we both know the meaning of proselytizing.

 

[Brian2]

Gods you don't believe to be real, and which are mutually exclusive to yours, also had impact on millions.
So clearly entities don't need to exist to have impact on people.

What has impact on these people is not the entity. It's the idea of / the belief in that entity that has the impact.
Kind of like a placebo.

Yes the truth which God has shown all of us has had an impact on all of us, including atheists.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I suppose skeptics/atheists deny having faith and so if that is accepted by the forum rule makers then skeptics/atheists can never be in breach of the no proselytyzing rule.

Surely you're aware that most atheists aren't on the forum or subject to its rules, yet they will also tell you that they live without faith.

Regarding proselytizing, most atheists are also humanists, who promote reason over faith and compassion over received morals, and who reject gods, scripture, and commandments (religion). If that's proselytizing, mea culpa. I'm doing what I do now - describing what humanism is, what humanists believe, and what their agenda is - but I wouldn't call it proselytization. It does not include converting you to humanism. Stay as you are if you like. It does include disempowering organized, politicized religions in secular states (antitheism).

But without beliefs skeptics/atheists certainly have a lot to preach about to those who say they have faith.

We don't preach. We teach. Preaching uses the methods of indoctrination - repetition without sound argument. Teaching involves reasoned, evidenced argument. Another big difference between the two is that your preacher cares whether you believe him. Your teacher may test what you've learned, but won't ask you if you believe it. Think of a creationist Sunday School "teacher" and a biology teacher teaching evolution.

The existence of God does not need to be verified or proven or even defined.

Nor believed.

So skeptics want to say they have to be part of nature and have verifiable scientific evidence or they are not true.

Not quite. Not believed to be true rather than declared untrue. The critical thinker doesn't call something untrue because it has not been demonstrated to be true. That's an ignorantium fallacy.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Presuming time began then, God said, "Let there be light" during time

As soon as you invoke change (became) or even persistence without change (is), you are implying the passage of time as well as location. Consciousness imposes an "I am here now" on the subject and "that is there now" on the object of consciousness, as well as an implied sense of was becoming is headed to will be. Even when dreaming, this is the architecture and psychology of the theater of consciousness. Even in prelinguistic humans and all other conscious beasts, this is the stage. And it would be the case for gods as well if they exist, because to exist means to exist somewhere sometime.

The point of all this is to show the self-contradiction (incoherence) of concepts like supernaturalism, and existing outside of time or space. Supernaturalism is an incoherent position if it means an existence and laws separate from nature yet able to effect nature. It may not matter to you, but as soon as you tell me that your god exists outside of time or is changeless, I understand that as it doesn't exist. And if there is an aspect of reality unknown to us that can modify perceptible reality, it's also part of nature - a previously unseen part. If gods exist, whatever we mean by a god, they are also a part and product of nature.

Yes the truth which God has shown all of us has had an impact on all of us, including atheists.

What truth? Can you say what it is and how you know it's true?
Your beliefs are the result of trying to say that something that doesn't exist does anyway. You say that it has none of the qualities of things that can be detected when asked to demonstrate this god, yet you claim to have detected it anyway and have a personal relationship with it. That's incoherent - you've detected the undetectable. I understand that as you've detected your own mind ("in here") and misunderstood what it reveals to you as being a part of "out there." But when we fail to detect this deity empirically, we are told it's not in space or time and undetectable. That's not hard to interpret.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I suppose skeptics/atheists deny having faith and so if that is accepted by the forum rule makers then skeptics/atheists can never be in breach of the no proselytyzing rule.
But without beliefs skeptics/atheists certainly have a lot to preach about to those who say they have faith.

Such as? Where is faith required, in the skeptic's position?

I already did that, but you decided to break up my answer (which included that) and get me to answer it again.



Verifiable advice does not exist about some things.



I suppose preaching your non existent faith is OK.

What are you claiming as "preaching" here?

 

[SkepticThinker]

If there is a God and the supernatural, a God who created everything keeps everything going and a supernatural that is the basis for life then God is not an exception, the physical universe is the exception.

This was in response to, "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 do I get? If, if, if, what I say is true, then what I say is true. Cool. Can you demonstrate that a god exists and created everything and "keeps everything going?"

The existence of God does not need to be verified or proven or even defined.

Oh, it doesn't? How do we know what we're talking about then?

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
-Christopher Hitchens

Nobody knows what the physical universe is, but who wants science to define what gravity for example, is, before believing it exists.
Is it a force, is it waves, what are these things anyway?

We can observe and measure the physical universe. We can make predictions about it. We can provide definitions for the things we are talking about in that physical universe, like "gravity."

So far, you've gone nothing even close to that with your god claims.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Supernatural is defined as those things beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

This was in response to, "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."


Thank you for providing something of a definition.

To me, it sounds like "the supernatural" is a placeholder for "things we can't explain." And then you just say "God did it," which isn't an actual explanation either.

So skeptics want to say they have to be part of nature and have verifiable scientific evidence or they are not true.

Do they?

All I've been saying is "what is the supernatural and how do we know it exists?"

That might be true for you and you can believe it if you want,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but it is not true just because you believe it to be so.

All you seem to have done here is said "I know you are but what am I?"

 

[SkepticThinker]

Evidently the opposite idea has greatly influenced the minds of those who adopt it... The world has become a much worse place to live in since atheists have been trying to promote their philosophy of survival of the fittest.

Whaa ?

 

[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?

Regards

 

[leroy]

Clearly, we have different operating definitions of "explanatory power".
Or we have different understandings of the word "explanation".

We are using the definitions in the OP.

Basically what it says is:

If the hypothesis is true, how well does it explain the facts to be explained.



So under that definition, would you agree that the resurrection has better explanatory power that psychosis? Yes or No?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We are using the definitions in the OP.

Basically what it says is:

If the hypothesis is true, how well does it explain the facts to be explained.



So under that definition, would you agree that the resurrection has better explanatory power that psychosis? Yes or No?

No.

 

[Colt]

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?

Regards

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.

 

[leroy]

No.

why not?