Spartan
Well-Known Member
Sorry, you're not the least bit believable. Cheers!
-
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 Resurrection of Jesus Christ
- Thread starter Spartan
- Start date
Sorry, you're not the least bit believable. Cheers!
It is you who isn't in the least believable.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Please pay attention. My point involved Mark and how that shows the Gospels were not independent. Q was a red herring that you brought up. I did not bring up Q, you did.
One of your own sources support my claim. I don't need "polls" I only need the sources that I already gave. And please, just because a source is not insane does not mean that they are liberal.
Calm down take a deep breath he try not to rant so much.
What do you mean by "early church fathers" and citation needed. Try to find a source that is based upon history that has gone through peer review.
You do not appear to understand what the word "know" means.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Not evidence. Most of those are mere hacks.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
sealchan
Well-Known Member
The resurrection of Jesus is a story that has come to be an inspiration to millions. It is an inspiration because it tells of how a common man, not an emperor or caesar became a God or was always God because he was the least among humanity.
This much is evident, anything more to be taken literally, such as the resurrection being literally true, is subject to the burden of evidence prior to any burden of disproving it.
It is evident that fantastic stories can inspire millions without being literally true.
"genuine dying-and-rising god is a characteristic feature of Ancient Near Eastern mythologies and the derived mystery cults of Late Antiquity.[8]" Dying-and-rising deity - Wikipedia
Where is the evidence? Other mythologies of the time which said the same thing. Jesus' resurrection, was hardly a unique claim for the times. Julius Caesar was resurrected too. Liberalia: Julius Caesar’s funeral and Resurrection
That is not considered extra-biblical sources. They are not disinterested, neutral parties. Commentaries are internal, not external.
Phaedrus
Active Member
Actually, it's his divinity. Take that away, as you can find in the Apocrypha, and you have no christianity.
To repeat what I've said elsewhere, there are several categories of problems with the Resurrection.
To show there was an historical resurrection, it's necessary to establish that:
1. There was an historical Jesus.
2. He had an ordinary human body and brain. [Some Christologies deny this.]
3. As a result of crucifixion, his body and brain became irreversibly dead, not as a matter of appearance but as a matter of fact.
4. He came back to life, in a physical body, with his personality, memories, intellect &c as they'd been before. However, various new and non-human qualities are attributed to his resurrected body.
As to 1, there's insufficient evidence to settle the question one way or the other. So all further arguments must be understood to begin, "Given there was an historical Jesus, then ...."
As to 2, unless you wish to put an alternative view, I'll proceed on that basis.
As to 3, the evidence for the events of the resurrection is of abysmal quality. I'll come back to that shortly. Meanwhile, the mainstream version says Jesus appears to die on the cross, is stabbed in the side to establish his death, and is taken down; the body is prepared in the usual fashion, taken to JofA's tomb and sealed inside it. The fact is that the medical knowledge did not exist in 30 CE (and indeed arguably doesn't exist now) to give an unambiguous determination of death in the absence of decay. At no stage is it claimed that Jesus' body was seen in a state of decay.
As to 4, the dead Jesus is said to be able, after his resurrection -
- to move about unseen
- to be seen as an unidentified person in the company of people who know him very well but to remain unrecognized by them until he chooses to be recognized
- to speak, touch and eat
- to appear inside locked rooms and to disappear from them
- to physically ascend unaided and with no exterior support or propulsion into to the sky
To which the impartial listener to these reports might be heard to murmur, My eye and Betty Martin ...
And the defenders of the tales to say that it was a manifestation of supernatural powers.
So at this point I ask you, as the provoker of this debate, to tell us by what method, in your view, these things were done; and if you're of the supernatural school, to tell us why the idea of the-supernatural-in-reality is not, just of itself, a contradiction in terms, since there's no distinction between 'nature' and 'the world external to the self' and 'objective reality'.
The only place where supernatural things are known to happen is in the imagination, no?
The next thing is the evidence. There are six accounts of the resurrection, Paul's, those of the authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and the one in Acts 1.
None is an eyewitness account. (An eyewitness account reads along the lines of "I was present at this place on this occasion. I saw A, B and C there. I heard A say the words "..." and B replied "..." ─ and so on. If you claim that you're reporting someone else's eyewitness account, then unless you reproduce word for word what that someone said, your report is at best merely hearsay.)
None is a contemporary account. The earliest is Paul's, in the 50s CE so not less than twenty years down the track. Mark's is some 45 years late, Matthew's and Luke's about 55 years late, John's about 70 years late, and the reference in Acts 1 about the same or a bit later.
None is an independent account.
They have in common that each of them irreconcilably contradicts the other five in major ways. To give you the general idea, not one of these questions has a unanimous answer:
Who went to the tomb?
What did they see?
Were there any guards?
What did they do?
Did they see anyone else there?
What did they do next?
To whom did Jesus first appear?
How?
Where did the people there go?
To whom did Jesus second appear?
Where?
With what result?
To whom did Jesus third appear?
Fourth appear?
Fifth appear?
When did Jesus ascend into heaven?
From where?
What did they see?
Were there any guards?
What did they do?
Did they see anyone else there?
What did they do next?
To whom did Jesus first appear?
How?
Where did the people there go?
To whom did Jesus second appear?
Where?
With what result?
To whom did Jesus third appear?
Fourth appear?
Fifth appear?
When did Jesus ascend into heaven?
From where?
I repeat: Not one of those questions has a unanimous answer. The closest we ever get is that four of the six accounts agree Mary Magdalene is part of the answer to the first question.
That's to say, the evidence is of abysmal quality.
As usual when I say that, I mention the videos of Ganesha drinking milk (one example here at 2:50). They don't persuade me, and I haven't heard a single Christian say he or she was persuaded either; but for quality of evidence they're light years ahead of the NT accounts of the resurrection.
Then there's the point that resurrections were standard fare for gods in the old days, so no surprise if Jesus gets one. As you know, there are three in the Tanakh (not counting Saul consulting Samuel's ghost), three plus Jesus in the NT plus Matthew's zombies, many many more in the mythologies of Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece and Rome, the Celts, and so on.
If you tell me what real thing you intend to denote when you say 'God', such that we have a test to tell us whether any real thing or being is God or not, I'll happily try to answer your question. Without that, I have no idea what you're talking about. And without that, you don't either.
Last edited:
Are you describing the OP? Oh right, you think you're describing another poster, but are actually describing yourself. Common fare...
Consequently, this thread sucks.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Ha ha!
So your idea of winning a debate is by responding with that fact that you don't believe a post?
There was no report of any resurrection in G-Mark, not until the ending got messed about with by the addition of verses.
Look, if you have faith in a resurrected Jesus that is fine and most folks will acknowledge your faith, but if you come on here with challenges you're going to get clobbered in debate, is all.
There was a real Jesus, I reckon, but he was definitely a son of man, no son of God there, I'm afraid.
Spartan
Well-Known Member
Go whine somewhere else then if it sucks.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
None of those authors can offer any evidence about any resurrection, although the books offering evidence of miracles could propose reasons for onlookers believing such actions were miraculous
All of the healing and other accounts in G-Mark can be explained as having occured ....... No problem with that.
But .... nope..... no resurrection.
If you believe, then fine, but you can't produce a win a debate about it.
Actually i think it's a combination of this:
As principle his idea of winning a debate is the same as everyone else's: A convincing argument, and specifically, he seems to be requesting evidence to counter his claims.
Too bad he's also suffering from cognitive dissonance by forgetting to use evidence for his own claims, and shifting the burden of proof. So:
He understands the victory conditions for a debate. He just doesn't understand the debate itself.
No. I specifically joined this thread to post how much it sucks due to your own hypocrisy.
You demand evidence to shoot down an extraordinary claim. Yet you gave NO evidence FOR your claim, which logically means that i don't need evidence to shoot it down. I'll just say it's wrong, and you're wrong, and this thread sucks.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
No....
That fact that Jesus went up to Galilee after that week in Jerusalem proves that he was 100% a survivor and very alive.
I don't think he died that week, he either was Jesus sonofthefather so loved by the people that Pilate pardoned and released him, as written on the bible,Bor he was crucified an taken down alive and survived, just like Josephus's friend did.
Good post.
Spartan
Well-Known Member
Tsk tsk... This should help you out on those alleged pagan "resurrections," none of which can be linked to Jesus. There's zero evidence for any linkage.
23 Reasons Why Scholars Know Jesus Is Not A Copy Of Pagan Religions.
By the skeptic's common practice of discarding or attempting to marginalize ALL historical references to Jesus, they unwittingly would have people believe in a massive and complicated conspiracy by mostly common, uneducated fishermen, etc., to advance a false narrative about Christ. Let's review who would probably have to be in this unwitting conspiracy of theirs and be labeled as liars, charlatans, etc.
1. Most or all of the disciples, including early unbelievers such as James and Thomas. Skeptics would, in effect, be assigning acts of deception to these men in spite of there being no narrative or history of dishonesty on their part.
2. The women at the tomb. First-century testimony of any kind that a resurrection never occurred is absent in history.
3. Luke, the physician and author of his Gospel. He wasn't a disciple. He wrote that he carefully investigated "everything" from the beginning. There's no evidence he just focused on the words and accounts of the apostles alone. What's more, he continues his narrative with the Book of Acts, with additional miracles and people (including Paul, a person initially hostile to Christianity) claiming to have had experiences with Christ. Plus, Paul's companions on the road to Damascus "heard the sound" of Paul's experience with Jesus. So Luke would have to be a liar, fool, or charlatan also.
4. Eusebius and Josephus and others who wrote about Jesus had to be lying, mistaken, or also in on the conspiracy to defraud the populace.
5. We need to add Paul to the conspiracy, since he wrote of the resurrection of Jesus in his epistles, and since he wrote most of the New Testament. Paul originally was a persecutor of Christians and was arguably culpable in at least one murder of a Christian. According to Luke, Paul had an experience with Jesus on the road to Damascus.
6. Let's also add in all the other eyewitnesses of miracles and/or authors of the New Testament, since they must also be liars, madmen, or charlatans.
I can probably dredge up some more, but the list of people who would have to be liars, charlatans, etc., is now too long (and unsupported by any credible evidence on the part of skeptics) to be believable.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
It only sicks because you don't know enough about the available evidence to put up a decent debate.
But then, if you did actually know the available evidence you would have kept quiet ...... Christians don't know there was a resurrection, they just have faith that there was.
Spartan
Well-Known Member
Very resurrected. That's the account by multiple NT authors.
You need evidence, not just an opinion.