The Resurrection is it provable?

[Subduction Zone]

Yes and so what?

The point is that

Sometimes (in some territories) roman authorities would allow the burial of a crucified person

Nope. You did not demonstrate that. You are conflating some dogs with beagles again.

Since you cannot read your source you do not know what they say about Roman crucifixions. You only know what was done about crucifixions in general. Some crucifixions did not leave the body up. that does not mean that some Roman crucifixions allowed the body to be taken down. You are failing at some rather basic logic here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have watched the debate between WLC and Carol if you ever shared any other video I didn’t notice it.

Then you have been shown to be the hypocrite. I gave you what you asked for . You did not even watch it. I posted only one video, an eight minute clip from that rather long debate. He took apart Lane's claim in several ways. The first one alone was enough.

This is the problem when you debate. You do not check sources. You did not even check your own source. An article that cannot be read cannot be used as evidence. When you demand evidence you have a duty to follow through on your part and try to understand the evidence. You did not even watch the short video that you demanded.

Hmm, I guess it is back to corrections only.

 

[leroy]

Nope. You did not demonstrate that. You are conflating some dogs with beagles again.

Since you cannot read your source you do not know what they say about Roman crucifixions. You only know what was done about crucifixions in general. Some crucifixions did not leave the body up. that does not mean that some Roman crucifixions allowed the body to be taken down. You are failing at some rather basic logic here.

Again the abstract is clear, it is talking about roman crucifixions,

I said what I had to say, I am just sharing the evidence that convinced me that the event is historical.

Awaiting for your “evidence” that the example that I gave of a tomb with a crucified man has been refuted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again the abstract is clear, it is talking about roman crucifixions,

I said what I had to say, I am just sharing the evidence that convinced me that the event is historical.

Awaiting for your “evidence” that the example that I gave of a tomb with a crucified man has been refuted.

Nope, it specifically says "Roman-Greco". that includes all of the Roman empire and their subjugated countries. It does not say "Roman".

You don't have any evidence.

 

[leroy]

Then you have been shown to be the hypocrite. I gave you what you asked for . You did not even watch it. I posted only one video, an eight minute clip from that rather long debate. He took apart Lane's claim in several ways. The first one alone was enough.

This is the problem when you debate. You do not check sources. You did not even check your own source. An article that cannot be read cannot be used as evidence. When you demand evidence you have a duty to follow through on your part and try to understand the evidence. You did not even watch the short video that you demanded.

Hmm, I guess it is back to corrections only.

I thought you where quoting the actual debate, this is not hypocrisy, it was just a mistake of mine.

But anyway , no I will not watch the video , I am asking you to provide a specific mistake that you think WLC made. I you are not willing to accomplish this request then I have nothing to add to this topic.

 

[leroy]

Nope, it specifically says "Roman-Greco". that includes all of the Roman empire and their subjugated countries. It does not say "Roman".

You don't have any evidence.

Again so what? "Greco Roman" includes the territory where Jesus was crusified, so what is your point?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So in summary

1 I presented an article that concludes that sometimes crucified people were buried
2 two examples of tombs from crucified people
3 most scholars accept the burial of Jesus
4 we have at least 2 independent testimonies (Paul Mark) confirming that Jesus was buried
5 the burial of Jesus had no theological meaning (so why would Paul and Mark lie)
6 Jesus was not a “serious criminal” (from the point of view of the romans)
7 an exception was made because a wealthy and influential man (Joseph of Arimathea) asked for the body.

My Job is not to convince you, but rather to provide evidence for my claims, and I think I did it with success.

Which claim are you referring to having successfully evidenced? Just burial, or resurrection and ascension? This is an argument that Jesus may have been buried. It argues that it was possible and that there are reports that it did, not that it happened that way.

If scholars are accepting the burial of Jesus based on this, I'd call them mistaken. The most one can say based on this is that burials of people crucified by the Romans occurred, that it is claimed that somebody asked for and buried the body of Jesus, and that two people claimed, not confirmed as you wrote, that Jesus was buried. Their accounts are not independent - they knew one another, and I don't believe either claimed to be an eyewitness to the burial.

But it is a moot point. We can stipulate to Jesus having been buried. Even if we agree that Jesus was buried in a private grave, that is not evidence of resurrection, nor of ascension.

Why would Paul and Mark lie? It's possible they believed what they were saying, but they had motive to embellish. They were trying to grow and spread a new religion, and to deify a man. We saw this in North Korea with the divine birth of the dictator: "Legend has it that a double rainbow and a glowing new star appeared in the heavens to herald the birth of Kim Jong Il."

The Japanese did so as well, with Hirohito in WWII, who was considered divine: "After the overthrow of the Japanese Shogunate in 1868, the four southern tribes, the Satsuma, Choshu, Saba and Tosa, sought to embed the legitimacy of their new regime by the re-promotion of an eighth century myth that the Japanese Emperor was a God."

Do you consider these facts or embellishments used to enhance a figure's apparent transcendent nature? If the latter, why would they just make these things up? Because that's what people do in such settings. Think about how biographies are rewritten as soon as somebody dies in daily life. Suddenly, everybody loved them, they'd give you the shirt off their back, they were an excellent parent, etc. - things people didn't say in those words when they were alive. It's human nature.

Getting back to resurrection and ascension, which is really the only part of the story for which the veracity is important to me, part of your argument has been that the witnesses must have seen something that convinced them that Jesus had risen and ascended to heaven. I asked twice before what that might be, but haven't seen an answer yet. I even mentioned the Gospel of Peter twice, which suggests that they saw a giant Jesus with a talking cross, but that didn't make it into the Bible. As far as I know, nobody claimed to witness anything except for an empty tomb, and Paul claimed to have a vision of the risen Jesus, but the people at the graveside didn't claim to see that. Can I assume that you just don't want to answer? If so, I'll also assume that it is because you have no answer, and now realize that nothing is evidence of that short of seeing a figure known to be dead get up and float or shoot into the air, which creates problems of its own. Jesus wouldn't have traveled through space to get to the right hand of the Father, would he? It would have to be more like a Star Trek transporter, where Jesus just fades from view.

 

[Sheldon]

It Aint Necessarily So said: ↑
What other means account for manufactured and aimed mirrors being on the moon?

I would have to see them by my own eyes first.

No you wouldn't at all, if you understood what they were for, and how easily their presence can be objectively tested. Powerful lasers can be fired at the mirrors, and used to more accurately measure the distance between the moon and the earth. If they weren't there this could be falsified easily and irrefutably.

They're there, they were put there by NASA during the moon landings.

 

[Sheldon]

so you have studied pretty much everyone who disagrees with my position. Like those who go to Ivy League schools, you graduate with what is placed in your heart.

As believers in the words of Jesus as he said, "From the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks"...

Likewise, what one meditates in, grows. In your case in that which is contrary to what was written.

Those are just subjective platitudes to be fair, they don't mean anything at all in terms of objective evidence or fact. I mean try and think how pointless it is to tell someone that you know is an atheist, what you believe Jesus said.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I thought you where quoting the actual debate, this is not hypocrisy, it was just a mistake of mine.

But anyway , no I will not watch the video , I am asking you to provide a specific mistake that you think WLC made. I you are not willing to accomplish this request then I have nothing to add to this topic.

No, your error was far beyond a "simple mistake". You asked, I delivered. Watch the short video and then we can discuss it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again so what? "Greco Roman" includes the territory where Jesus was crusified, so what is your point?

Whoosh!!

You never listen to your opponents. Last time, The Romans were not the only ones that used crucifixion. The Jews used it to. They copied the Romans in that punishment. But where the Romans would not care what the religion of the people that they were oppressing said the religion of the people that copied them would matter. The Jews would have still followed their religion and taken the bodies of their crucifixions down.

Do you understand your error yet? I am done trying to explain the obvious to you. I will merely remind you of your failure to understand the difference between "beagles" and "some dogs".

 

[leroy]

Which claim are you referring to having successfully evidenced? Just burial,

Yes in this context I am talking about just the burial.

If scholars are accepting the burial of Jesus based on this, I'd call them mistaken. The most one can say based on this is that burials of people crucified by the Romans occurred, that it is claimed that somebody asked for and buried the body of Jesus, and that two people claimed, not confirmed as you wrote, that Jesus was buried. Their accounts are not independent - they knew one another, and I don't believe either claimed to be an eyewitness to the burial.

Paul knew the authors of the Gosples? that is news to me.

Paul knew James the brother of Jesus, and some of the apostoles (atleast Peter and John)

So obviously he was in a position to know if Jesus was buried or not,,,,,, I mean if I die it would be extremely probable that my biological brothers would know if I was buried in a tomb or not.

But it is a moot point. We can stipulate to Jesus having been buried. Even if we agree that Jesus was buried in a private grave, that is not evidence of resurrection, nor of ascension.

It’s a 2 part argument

1 if Jesus was buried

2 and if the tomb was empty

Then the combination of 1 and 2 would count as evidence for the resurrection (it would be a correct prediction of the resurrection hypothesis)

But granted the burial by itself doesn’t prove anything.

Why would Paul and Mark lie? It's possible they believed what they were saying, but they had motive to embellish. They were trying to grow and spread a new religion, and to deify a man. We saw this in North Korea with the divine birth of the dictator: "Legend has it that a double rainbow and a glowing new star appeared in the heavens to herald the birth of Kim Jong Il."

The question is, why would Mark and Paul lie about the burial? Even if he would have been buried in a common grave the meaning and significance of the resurrection would have been the same. ...

Getting back to resurrection and ascension, which is really the only part of the story for which the veracity is important to me, part of your argument has been that the witnesses must have seen something that convinced them that Jesus had risen and ascended to heaven. I asked twice before what that might be, but haven't seen an answer yet

It´s nothing personal, sometimes it´s hard to keep up with a conversation, sometimes I simply forget about previous posts.

Yes I said that it can be established as a highly probable fact that people saw something that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus.

And I would suggest that the experience was real, they really saw Jesus (it was not an illusion, nor a fraud, nor a mistake)……….did I answer your question?

 

[leroy]

No, your error was far beyond a "simple mistake". You asked, I delivered. Watch the short video and then we can discuss it.

Again, if you what to have a conversation with on WLC and his alleged mistakes and dishonesty, you have to

1 quotes his actual words

2 explain why it is a mistake

If you are not willing to do that, then do not expect to have a conversation with me about that topic // I am not trying to be rude, it is just that in my opinion this is the best way to have a conversation on the topic

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, if you what to have a conversation with on WLC and his alleged mistakes and dishonesty, you have to

1 quotes his actual words

2 explain why it is a mistake

If you are not willing to do that, then do not expect to have a conversation with me about that topic // I am not trying to be rude, it is just that in my opinion this is the best way to have a conversation on the topic

Sorry, you expect too much work and refuse to do any yourself. Watch the short video I provided. If you do not understand the refutation then we can refer to it.

You are asking others to do all of your homework for you.

 

[leroy]

Whoosh!!

You never listen to your opponents. Last time, The Romans were not the only ones that used crucifixion. The Jews used it to. They copied the Romans in that punishment. But where the Romans would not care what the religion of the people that they were oppressing said the religion of the people that copied them would matter. The Jews would have still followed their religion and taken the bodies of their crucifixions down.

Do you understand your error yet? I am done trying to explain the obvious to you. I will merely remind you of your failure to understand the difference between "beagles" and "some dogs".

Again

My sources deal with Roman Crucifixion in roman territories and Jesus was crucified by the romans in roman territory.

Whether if Jewish authorities crucified people or not and whether if their bodies were buried or not is irrelevant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes in this context I am talking about just the burial.






Paul knew the authors of the Gosples? that is news to me.

Paul knew James the brother of Jesus, and some of the apostoles (atleast Peter and John)

So obviously he was in a position to know if Jesus was buried or not,,,,,, I mean if I die it would be extremely probable that my biological brothers would know if I was buried in a tomb or not.

Sorry but that is a non sequitur. At best if he knew those people he might know their beliefs. He could not know if Jesus was buried or not.

It’s a 2 part argument

1 if Jesus was buried

2 and if the tomb was empty

Then the combination of 1 and 2 would count as evidence for the resurrection (it would be a correct prediction of the resurrection hypothesis)

But granted the burial by itself doesn’t prove anything.

Not really. It is really only evidence for an empty tomb and there are many explanations that are far more likely. Did you read the link provided on the debate between Ehrman and WLC? Once again WLC had his donkey handed to him. WLC demanded that the least likely explanation had to be the correct one based on very poor reasoning. Do you understand that almost any hypothetical natural explanation is more likely than one that involves a miracle, aka magic?

The question is, why would Mark and Paul lie about the burial? Even if he would have been buried in a common grave the meaning and significance of the resurrection would have been the same. ...

To boost a growing religion that they truly believed in. Just as many Trump voters are willing to embrace the lies that Trump cheated. Look at what happened on January 6. People tried to overthrow the US government. All for a lie about a corrupt politician. Think how more willing people would be to lie for Jesus beiefs.

It´s nothing personal, sometimes it´s hard to keep up with a conversation, sometimes I simply forget about previous posts.

Yes I said that it can be established as a highly probable fact that people saw something that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus.

And I would suggest that the experience was real, they really saw Jesus (it was not an illusion, nor a fraud, nor a mistake)……….did I answer your question?

Why do you think that it was real? Again, odds wise any natural argument beats one involving a miracle. You need strong evidence for your claims and all you have are wisps of straw.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again

My sources deal with Roman Crucifixion in roman territories and Jesus was crucified by the romans in roman territory.

Whether if Jewish authorities crucified people or not and whether if their bodies were buried or not is irrelevant.

So what? The local governments still had powers. How many times do you have to be told that the Romans were not the only ones that used crucifixion? Your source only deals with crucifixion in Roman territories. That is not the same as Roman crucifixion.

You still think that all dogs are beagles.

 

[Link]

Is there any scientific proof or historic proof that Jesus was resurrected and crucified?

There is abstract religion and there is hard time instance. Abstract religion can be proven through logical proofs and spiritual proofs.

The hard time historical lives of those who are instances of his religion, can't be known by logical or spiritual proofs.

History is not provable concrete means to know things (all historians today will tell you that). A lot of it is conjecture based on other theories of anthropology and other social sciences.

Miracles are never acknowledged by secular historians as historically accurate.

So you can't prove it through "historical proofs".

Quran also verifies that past miracles and destroyed nations of the past, become forgotten over time, and that people assume miracles didn't happen and that whatever cities are left with no people are left for natural reasons.

It also says concerning living real time proofs and miracles, for every people there is such a guide, and it's up to God to hide that proof or manifest it to whatever degree. We wait patiently while disbelievers wait mockingly, it maybe, that a soul is shown miracles by Imam and accuses him of being a sorcerer in time just as most did when Messengers performed them.

And so if you wish to know if Jesus came out of the grace and feigned death and came out of the grave while not truly dying but rather he decides by God's permission when to die and seeks God's pleasure in all that, then history is not the means.

You have to analyze the holy books and also legacy of the sent ones of God in my view. Then your heart will be illuminated to know the truth in this regard.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Paul knew the authors of the Gospels?

That's what I learned, but perhaps not all of them. From Who Are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? (churchofjesuschrist.org) : "Mark was also a follower of Jesus Christ but would likely have been in his teens when the Lord was in Jerusalem. He may have seen and listened to the Savior on occasion. After the Resurrection, as the Savior’s message was beginning to be spread, Mark traveled with the Apostle Paul."

Also, from John Mark - Wikipedia : "John Mark is named in the Acts of the Apostles as an assistant accompanying Paul and Barnabas on their missionary journeys. Traditionally he is regarded as identical with Mark the Evangelist, the traditional writer of the Gospel of Mark."

It's not important to the argument either way. Even if they had never met, their understanding of the story of Jesus wouldn't be independent, just like yours and mine aren't. We're all influenced by common sources whether the words were spoken (word of mouth) or written.

Paul knew James the brother of Jesus, and some of the apostles (at least Peter and John). So obviously he was in a position to know if Jesus was buried or not. I mean if I die it would be extremely probable that my biological brothers would know if I was buried in a tomb or not.

Yes, your brothers would likely know if you had been buried in a tomb, and I would have no reason to think that they had made that up unless they were known to have a reason to do so, but even then, I would only believe their report tentatively. It's a habit of thought for me to estimate how certain I feel about any belief. I would believe the tomb story more if I had seen the burial and the tomb than if somebody told me about it. It sounds to me that you don't make that distinction. You seem to ask, "Why would they lie?" and assume that because you don't know a reason why they would lie, they aren't. That doesn't comport with life experience. And if I were telling somebody about it, I wouldn't say that Leroy was buried in a tomb, but that his brothers told me was. If I asked, I might add that I have no reason to disbelieve them, but I don't know if they're lying or mistaken, since I don't know for sure that there is such a tomb or that you were in it if I was taken to a tomb.

It’s a 2 part argument

1 if Jesus was buried
2 and if the tomb was empty

Then the combination of 1 and 2 would count as evidence for the resurrection (it would be a correct prediction of the resurrection hypothesis). But granted the burial by itself doesn’t prove anything.

That's still not good evidence for resurrection. You can't think of any explanation for that which doesn't involve resurrection? I can think of several.

Yes I said that it can be established as a highly probable fact that people saw something that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus. And I would suggest that the experience was real, they really saw Jesus (it was not an illusion, nor a fraud, nor a mistake)……….did I answer your question?

Not quite. I'm asking you what people might have seen that could be interpreted as a resurrection and ascension. If it's only a body being place in a tomb that wasn't there three days later, as I just wrote, that's not good evidence for resurrection or ascension. At a minimum, we'd need to see what we thought was a dead body revivify for the resurrection, and leave the earth for the ascension. And I can tell you that while I would consider that a spectacle, I would consider it an illusion before considering it a miracle. So what did these people see that you think convinced them that a miracle had occurred? Just an unexpectedly empty tomb?

 

[leroy]

Sorry, you expect too much work and refuse to do any yourself. Watch the short video I provided. If you do not understand the refutation then we can refer to it.

You are asking others to do all of your homework for you.

Again, nobody is forcing you to do anything, if you want to talk to me about WLC , you have to do what I asked you to do……….. if you don’t want that is ok, perhaps someone else would want to address the topic by your rules.

Sorry, you expect too much work

1 Richar Career claims that James was not the biological brother of Jesus but rather sort of “spiritual brother”

2
I think his is wrong, multiple sources (Paul, Gospels, Josephus, Clement etc. ) refer to James as the biological brother of Jesus


You are expected to do the same with WLC, This wasn’t too much work,