Historicity of Claimed Miracles

[Call_of_the_Wild]

here is a little Bart Ehrman for you.

Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate | Reasonable Faith

Bart has already been destroyed by the likes of Craig and Licona, so no need to beat a dead horse.

The burial by Joseph of Arimathea I’ve argued could well be a later invention.

Later invention? Why does it need to be an invention? What is so hard to believe about a man who was put to death and buried just like any other person that died? I mean you can be skeptical about the Resurrection all day, but some of you people are calling in to question regular stuff...simple stuff...natural stuff. I mean, geez.

The empty tomb also could be a later invention.

Based on what?

We don’t have a reference to it in Paul; you only have it later in the Gospels

There was no reference to what in Paul? The empty tomb? He said that Jesus was raised from the dead...if Jesus was raised from the dead, then obviously the tomb was empty so why would he need to mention it? Makes no sense.

Once people come to believe Jesus’ tomb was empty, they come to believe he’s raised from the dead, and they have visions.

The question is; was the tomb empty? If the tomb wasn't empty, then Christianity would have never got off the ground because all people would of had to do was just go to the tomb and if Jesus' body was there, then how the heck could the claim be made that he rose from the dead and made post mortem appearances!!!?? You don't think it would be foolish for people to go around claiming that Jesus rose from the dead if his body still lay in the tomb? Makes no sense.

I’m not saying I think this happened. I think that it’s plausible. It could have happened. It’s more plausible than the claim that God must have raised Jesus from the dead. That is not the most probable historical explanation.

It is the most probable explanation. The disciples weren't basing their belief off of second and third hand accounts, they were basing it off of their own personal testimonies.

Remember the original mark our earliest gospel around 70CE did not have the resurrection

Yes it did. The original Gospel of Mark ends with empty tomb and the angel telling Mary and the other women "he has risen", and not only did he say "he has risen", he said "HE IS NOT HERE"...so if he told them "HE IS NOT HERE", then obviously the tomb was empty. See how that works?

 

[idav]

Claiming the resurrection to be historical can't be done with the same evidence that is used to determine Jesus even existed. Even if the guy did exist any supernatural attaching to the stories are likely embellishments or flat out lies/made up. Jesus spoke in parables and also used the miracles as parables as well which is a very strong clue that the whole thing is symbolic and metaphorical.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Claiming the resurrection to be historical can't be done with the same evidence that is used to determine Jesus even existed.

Cool, but the origins of the disciples beliefs have to be explained, and it is best explained by the truth value of the claim.

Even if the guy did exist any supernatural attaching to the stories are likely embellishments or flat out lies/made up.

Or it could be actual factuals.

 

[Ingledsva]

From Wikipedia

Main article: Historicity and origin of the Resurrection of Jesus (the first paragraph below)


The earliest Christians proclaimed Jesus as the risen Christ. The first Christians may be defined as those followers of Jesus who, after his crucifixion, proclaimed him as the risen lord.[32] The earliest Christian scriptures place Jesus' resurrection at the center of religious faith. The preaching and letters of Apostle Peter in the Acts of the Apostles and the letters of Paul declared that Jesus died, was raised by God and the apostles are witnesses to this resurrection.[47]

But the question is what was that "risen?"


My guess would be just assurance/confirmation to the faithful, that after death, he was taken to God, - and not those later fantastical rising from the grave and walking around narratives.


The farther away in time from the event - the more fantastical material that is added to the original gospel.



*

 

[Ingledsva]

...


There was no reference to what in Paul? The empty tomb? He said that Jesus was raised from the dead...if Jesus was raised from the dead, then obviously the tomb was empty so why would he need to mention it? Makes no sense.

...

Actually you are just assuming.


To say Jesus was "risen" after his death, is more likly just a proclamation of their belief, that believers would "rise" to heaven.


It does not in any sense have to be taken as a literal rising of his body, which then walked around, etc.


Later writers added more fantastical stuff to the narratives.


Even the Birth narrative went from simple to complicated/fantastical. Probably because of their Pagan/convert audience, which were more familiar with their own God stories.


*

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Actually you are just assuming.

To say Jesus was "risen" after his death, is more likly just a proclamation of their belief, that believers would "rise" to heaven.

Ok, but if you interpret "rise" to mean spiritual rather than bodily, then you have to explain the empty tomb. That is what the narratives state, that the tomb was empty. If it was a spirtual "resurrection" then why was the tomb empty?

Not to mention other scriptures which support the bodily resurrection theory.

It does not in any sense have to be taken as a literal rising of his body, which then walked around, etc.

As I mentioned, we have other scriptures which support the bodily theory. Allow me to lay some ice on you, Ingeldsva...

The first crystal I will give you comes from the Gospel of John; John 20:24-27...

24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

So what is going on here? Thomas said unless he "see the nail marks in his hands and put his fingers where the nails were, and put his hand into his side, he won't believe".

So, when Thomas was told by the other disciples that they've seen the Lord, he understood this as bodily...why else would he demand to touch the Lord? You can't touch a spirit, but you can touch a body.

And more importantly, Jesus obliged, by telling him to to place his hands and fingers where the nails were. See how that works?

The second gem I will give you comes from the book of Acts...now let me lay some more ice on you...Acts 13:35-37...Paul is speaking to the assembly..lets just start from verse 35

35 So it is also stated elsewhere:
“‘You will not let your holy one see decay.’[a]

36 “Now when David had served God’s purpose in his own generation, he fell asleep; he was buried with his ancestors and his body decayed. 37 But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay.

First off, he starts off by giving a scripture which prophesized the bodily Resurrection, which states "You will not let your holy one see decay"....only bodies can decay, right?

Second, he drew a parallel from David, who was "buried with his ancestors and his body decayed"...and he is basically saying David's body decayed after he died, but the "one whom God raised from the dead did not decay". Once again, only a body can decay.

Third, once again, if Jesus' appearances were spiritual, then his body would still lay in the tomb, but scriptures tell us that the tomb was empty.

So we have three very good reasons to think the Resurrection was bodily. So I just dropped three gems on you there, Ingle.

Later writers added more fantastical stuff to the narratives.

Think so?

Even the Birth narrative went from simple to complicated/fantastical. Probably because of their Pagan/convert audience, which were more familiar with their own God stories.

Based on????

 

[Ingledsva]

Ok, but if you interpret "rise" to mean spiritual rather than bodily, then you have to explain the empty tomb. That is what the narratives state, that the tomb was empty. If it was a spirtual "resurrection" then why was the tomb empty?

Not to mention other scriptures which support the bodily resurrection theory.


As I mentioned, we have other scriptures which support the bodily theory. Allow me to lay some ice on you, Ingeldsva...

The first crystal I will give you comes from the Gospel of John; John 20:24-27...

24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

So what is going on here? Thomas said unless he "see the nail marks in his hands and put his fingers where the nails were, and put his hand into his side, he won't believe".

So, when Thomas was told by the other disciples that they've seen the Lord, he understood this as bodily...why else would he demand to touch the Lord? You can't touch a spirit, but you can touch a body.

And more importantly, Jesus obliged, by telling him to to place his hands and fingers where the nails were. See how that works?

The second gem I will give you comes from the book of Acts...now let me lay some more ice on you...Acts 13:35-37...Paul is speaking to the assembly..lets just start from verse 35

35 So it is also stated elsewhere:
“‘You will not let your holy one see decay.’[a]

36 “Now when David had served God’s purpose in his own generation, he fell asleep; he was buried with his ancestors and his body decayed. 37 But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay.

First off, he starts off by giving a scripture which prophesized the bodily Resurrection, which states "You will not let your holy one see decay"....only bodies can decay, right?

Second, he drew a parallel from David, who was "buried with his ancestors and his body decayed"...and he is basically saying David's body decayed after he died, but the "one whom God raised from the dead did not decay". Once again, only a body can decay.

Third, once again, if Jesus' appearances were spiritual, then his body would still lay in the tomb, but scriptures tell us that the tomb was empty.

So we have three very good reasons to think the Resurrection was bodily. So I just dropped three gems on you there, Ingle.

Think so?


Based on????

Right off the bat - you ignored what I said.


It is logical for them to say Jesus had risen, spiritually, as that is what they taught for all believers.


Anything beyond that is most likely add-ons.


The add-ons get more fantastic - the farther away in time - from the original event.



*

 

[George-ananda]

But the question is what was that "risen?"

That is another question I wasn't addressing.

My guess would be just assurance/confirmation to the faithful, that after death, he was taken to God, - and not those later fantastical rising from the grave and walking around narratives.

That would not be my opinion. My point was they experienced His presence in at least some kind of way that we would call paranormal. I was saying the fact they were the alleged eyewitnesses and they chose martyrdom over recanting was evidence to me they likely had a 'risen Christ' experience.

However I even believe there have been great Himalayan masters that can enter and depart from our normal 3-dimensional physical environment. I read my 'Autobiography of a Yogi'.

The farther away in time from the event - the more fantastical material that is added to the original gospel.

One thing I pointed out earlier was that the 'risen Christ' goes back to the earliest traceable evidence of Christianity.

 

[Ingledsva]

But the question is what was that "risen?"


My guess would be just assurance/confirmation to the faithful, that after death, he was taken to God, - and not those later fantastical rising from the grave and walking around narratives.


The farther away in time from the event - the more fantastical material that is added to the original gospel.

That is another question I wasn't addressing.

That would not be my opinion. My point was they experienced His presence in at least some kind of way that we would call paranormal. I was saying the fact they were the alleged eyewitnesses and they chose martyrdom over recanting was evidence to me they likely had a 'risen Christ' experience.

However I even believe there have been great Himalayan masters that can enter and depart from our normal 3-dimensional physical environment. I read my 'Autobiography of a Yogi'.

One thing I pointed out earlier was that the 'risen Christ' goes back to the earliest traceable evidence of Christianity.

Indeed, earliest traces, - not the books that were written long after the event - most likely by people that weren't there.


It is hence most logical to assume they meant it in a Spiritual manner - which is what they taught the congregation, was going to happen to them, - and that the far removed writers, - added the fantastical parts, to draw in the new Pagan converts much later.


A special Spiritual teacher sent from God would not need parlor tricks.


PS. I also read "Autobiography of a Yogi," so what is your point?



*

 

[George-ananda]

It is hence most logical to assume they meant it in a Spiritual manner - which is what they taught the congregation, was going to happen to them, - and that the far removed writers, - added the fantastical parts, to draw in the new Pagan converts much later.

My guess is that objective eye-witnessing took place and He appeared to them in a form quite possibly physical.

A special Spiritual teacher sent from God would not need parlor tricks.

I'm saying it's divine power beyond our understanding (not a parlor trick) meant to support and encourage the faithful.

PS. I also read "Autobiography of a Yogi," so what is your point?

*

That the great have power to appear in physical form if they so desire. Remember Mahavatar Babaji

 

[Ingledsva]

My guess is that objective eye-witnessing took place and He appeared to them in a form quite possibly physical.


I'm saying it's divine power beyond our understanding (not a parlor trick) meant to support and encourage the faithful.


That the great have power to appear in physical form if they so desire. Remember Mahavatar Babaji

Yes I do remember. I find it interesting that he links Christ as another Mahavatar.

However, what a book says is not necessarily true. The book also tells us there is no historical reference to Babaji.


If you have read some of my posts in the past, then you know I believe India is the background for a lot of the ideas in the original Hebrew religion.


"Ah Moon of my Delight who know'st no wane,
The Moon of Heav'n is rising once again;
How oft hereafter rising shall she look
Through this same garden after me - in vain!"

Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam


*

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Right off the bat - you ignored what I said.


It is logical for them to say Jesus had risen, spiritually, as that is what they taught for all believers.


Anything beyond that is most likely add-ons.


The add-ons get more fantastic - the farther away in time - from the original event.

You obviously ignored what I said...because if you didn't, you wouldn't be sitting here talking about how "logical it was for them to say that Jesus had risen", when I gave you scriptural evidence which states otherwise. But oh well.

 

[ranvirk]

Miracle simply means we need to learn more about natural world...there is no such thing called miracle

 

[George-ananda]

Yes I do remember. I find it interesting that he links Christ as another Mahavatar.

However, what a book says is not necessarily true. The book also tells us there is no historical reference to Babaji.


If you have read some of my posts in the past, then you know I believe India is the background for a lot of the ideas in the original Hebrew religion.


"Ah Moon of my Delight who know'st no wane,
The Moon of Heav'n is rising once again;
How oft hereafter rising shall she look
Through this same garden after me - in vain!"

Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam


*

I think the difference between us is that you take a dim view of all these masters that have control of physical reality with their will. I buy into that view. Why? I think the whole universe is just mind-stuff; a play/drama of consciousness.

Jesus appearing physically after death is not as much a stretch for me as it is for you. I believe it has precedence.

 

[George-ananda]

Miracle simply means we need to learn more about natural world...there is no such thing called miracle

Do you think the natural world can include a person like Jesus having the ability to rise Himself from death?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Do you think the natural world can include a person like Jesus having the ability to rise Himself from death?

I don't. It's because I need good evidence for believing stuff, and an old story about a godman raising himself -- in a primitive time and place -- just doesn't do it for me.

For what it's worth, I also don't believe a modern story about a yogi walking on water or whatever.

I've spent my life watching human minds. I've seen how and why they so love to fool us.

 

[George-ananda]

I don't. It's because I need good evidence for believing stuff, and an old story about a godman raising himself -- in a primitive time and place -- just doesn't do it for me.

For what it's worth, I also don't believe a modern story about a yogi walking on water or whatever.

The question was do you think our understanding of the natural world can expand to include things that colloquially in the past have been called paranormal? If so, who could guess the limits scientifically?

I've spent my life watching human minds. I've seen how and why they so love to fool us.

And these minds usually serve us well.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The question was do you think our understanding of the natural world can expand to include things that colloquially in the past have been called paranormal?

I don't know. You'd have to give me an example.

If so, who could guess the limits scientifically?

The limits of science have to do with whether there's anything testable about the phenomenon. If it only happens to special people at special times, then it's not going to be part of science.

Think about ball lightning. I saw it when I was a kid but no one believed me. Only in more recent times have scientists been able to test it. If scientists still couldn't observe it, well it might be my hallucination or it might be real-but-unstudiable.

But it was just a phenomenon. No sorcerer conjured it up for me. No prophet commanded it in the name of his God. It was disconnected in any way from the will of a conscious being.

That makes it different from most paranormal claims.

And these minds usually serve us well.

Me, I don't like being fooled. So I watch my mind pretty closely and with a skeptical eye.

 

[idav]

Do you think the natural world can include a person like Jesus having the ability to rise Himself from death?

No but I might agree with the few gospels that say it was done by the "father". Despite the contradiction of one saying he raised himself, not too sure why the contradiction and it is kind of a big difference. Of course Trinitarians use it to justify the trinity, gosh someone might have just been wrong when writing it.

Romans 8:11 says, “If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.”

edit: the Trinitarians get it from this symbolic line "“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” I thought some take it literally, idk.

 

[Ingledsva]

You obviously ignored what I said...because if you didn't, you wouldn't be sitting here talking about how "logical it was for them to say that Jesus had risen", when I gave you scriptural evidence which states otherwise. But oh well.

LOL! Go back and read the thread.


We were talking about early belief.


It is the later books written by people that were not there, that have a bunch of supernatural junk added in.


You quoted those later books!



*