IsaiahX
Ape That Loves
Can anyone find a flaw in this person's argument (Five reasons to believe Jesus rose from the dead - Adam4d.com) I read it, and it seemed fairly sensible. I would be happy to hear some alternative opinions on the issue.
-
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!
The Ressurection
- Thread starter IsaiahX
- Start date
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Has there been any studies outside of bias that would explain the nature of someone in an empty tomb not decomposing but escaping from the burial and rising up in flesh?
I'm sure there should be something in our scientific studies and logic and basic biology that would allude one person can rise but no one else can. The whole thing sounds very off.
The appearances. Has there been anyone outside of the bible who can confirm the laws of physics bent during jesus day? What did the philosophers say on this....the ones who questioned authority and got themselves killed over it. I think socrates was crucified tonic I can remember.
Anything outside of the bible that proves X event actual cause a supernatural Y experience without bias?
That, and if jesus floated in the air what about other religions and Greek influence gods etc and their supernatural events?
If the supernatural was part of everyday life only what two thousand some odd years ago, why would it be isolated to that one spot during jesus day?
It sounds like some christians are trying to find evidence for a religion that isn't based on evidence but faith.
Why the contradiction?
IsaiahX
Ape That Loves
Could you be more specific?
james blunt
Well-Known Member
I'm glad they did not check my pulses the first time around
If you wish.
One
The existence of an historical Jesus is problematic. There's no clincher either way. So when we talk about Jesus in history, on the present state of our knowledge we're talking about a 50-50 bet.
Two
There is no eyewitness account of the resurrection, not even a purported one.
There is no contemporary account of the resurrection. Like Jesus himself, it went wholly unnoticed in Jerusalem. The first mention, by Paul, is some 20 years later.
There is no independent account of the resurrection. It all comes from believers.
Three
Resurrections were the expected thing in ancient times.
* Samuel, dead, spoke with Saul (though arguably he was a ghost, not a resurrected body.)
* Elijah raised the Zarephath woman’s son (1 Kings 17:17+).
* Elisha raised the Shunammite woman’s son (2 Kings 4:32+).
* The man whose dead body touched Elisha’s bones was resurrected (2 Kings 13:21)
* Jesus raised the Nain widow’s son (Luke 7:12+).
* Jesus raised Lazarus (John 11:41-44).
* Peter raised Tabitha / Dorcas (Acts 9:36-40).
* Matthew describes the faithful dead at large in the streets of Jerusalem (Matthew 27:52-53).
Elsewhere – and this is only a tiny sample – gods Osiris in Egypt and Dionusos in Greece were put to death and came back to life. In Greece, Herakles, son of Zeus, died, was resurrected and became a god. Mortal Asklepios raised Lukourgos, Kapaneos and Tundareos from the dead, and Glaukos, Hippolutos and Orion were resurrected too – as indeed was Asklepios himself. Eurudike (and Scandanavia’s Baldur) nearly made it back. Sumer’s Dumuzi, and Greece's Persephone and Adonis had to spend only half their time in the Underworld.
There’s nothing special about a resurrection. Gods and mortals had already performed them many times, in many cultures, all with equal credibility.
Four
The supernatural by definition doesn't happen in reality. Since it doesn't happen in reality, the only place it can occur is in imagination. Look around you and if I'm wrong, show me.
So ANY other explanation of an empty tomb is vastly more probable than any supernatural explanation.
Five
There are six accounts of the resurrection in the NT ─ Paul at 1 Corinthians 15, but he never met an historical Jesus; the four gospels (written 40 to 70 years after the traditional date of the resurrection); and Acts 1.
Not only are they not contemporary, not by eyewitnesses, not independent, but each of the six contradicts the other five in major ways. Who went to the tomb? What did they see? Was there an earthquake? Were there guards? What did they do next? To whom did Jesus first appear? Secpnd? Third? Were they to meet Jesus at Galilee or in Jerusalem? When did Jesus ascend? Where? No two reports agree.
Six
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. >This video< (and a quick search will find you several others) of Ganesha miraculously drinking milk, is better evidence by several orders of magnitude than the bible accounts; but it didn't convince me, and I doubt it will convince many others.
Let me know if you'd like more.
Axe Elf
Prophet
IsaiahX
Ape That Loves
While I do believe that the document has more problems than I initially did, I was simply asking what about the document you disagree with with?
Sounds reasonable to the ones that already believe.
None of these five remotely demonstrate the certainty of the belief in Resurrection unless you accept the five are true based on faith and than the argument becomes intensely circular.
There are absolutely outside sources during the life of Jesus Christ, outside the gospels and letters which were compiled after the facts claimed.
Last edited:
Axe Elf
Prophet
I don't disagree with with [sic] any of it. The Bible does indeed state the things that the article claims that it does.
I asked if you were kidding because the flaw in citing a source as a reason (or five reasons) to believe that the source itself is true seems rather obvious to anyone who's been buried in this site for more than three days (see what I did there?)
The first NT book to mention the resurrection is Paul’s letter to Corinthians written 20 + years after Jesus was crucified. Paul claims to have seen the resurrected Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:8) yet he didn’t convert to Christianity until well after the alleged 40 days of resurrection sightings before His alleged ascension through the stratosphere into outer space where the gospel writers believed heaven to be located. So a far more likely explanation is that Paul developed a story that appealed to his Greek audience. The story of the resurrection may have symbolised the church or faithful believers being initially disillusioned after Christ’s crucifixion becoming invigorated by the breaths of the Holy Spirit. Paul often referred to the church as the body of Christ. The first gospels weren’t written until 66 AD and then most likely by those who weren’t eyewitnesses. The gospel writers simply ran with the resurrection narrative and embellished the story with the empty tomb and appearances that seemed spirit like. The Bible’s filled with allegorical stories after all. Take Genesis for example with the creation and flood myths.
MrMrdevincamus
Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
I would like to see some clarification on that comment as well. OOps I see the clarification now, thanks. My PC has been herkey jerky and acting funny for days, I despise win 10! The religion that member IsaiahX claims has some extraordinary components as well. As for the resurrection there some extra biblical sources as well that reported on the event. The most important quality a christian can have is faith. However faith is a very unpalatable idea to a modern person, especially a scientist. Faith is the direct opposite of empirical science. If evidence or claims can not be proven by empirical means its meaningless.That said logical empiricism has not been around forever. I am not so sure its something we should believe that produces the most correct answer. But that's material for another thread I suppose.
Last edited: