What Convinces You That Jesus Did Not Rise from the Dead?

[jonathan180iq]

Yes there is. But I guess it is pointless telling someone like you, right.

There are lots of readers here. Don't forget that forum conversations are read by many more people than those who actually comment.

 

[Sapiens]

Name one.

And don't bother with Flavius or Josephus.

Please ... put up or shut up.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Name one.

And don't bother with Flavius or Josephus.

haha... Ok. So dismiss the evidence then hey! Even the Bible itself is witnessed statements. Do you know that it is difficult to prove anything that is that long ago? Try it.

 

[Robert.Evans]

There are lots of readers here. Don't forget that forum conversations are read by many more people than those who actually comment.

That is a good point. But I suppose anyone who is truly interested would search the net as I would. That is what we do isn't it... we find something that seems right, and then we research it. Point taken though.

 

[jonathan180iq]

haha... Ok. So dismiss the evidence then hey! Even the Bible itself is witnessed statements. Do you know that it is difficult to prove anything that is that long ago? Try it.

The citations that are constantly given from Flavius and Josephus are not accepted at higher levels of academia. And before you suggest that they were only debunked by atheist scholars or something, that's just not true. There are plenty of Christian scholars who have come to the same conclusions.

 

[Iti oj]

The citations that are constantly given from Flavius and Josephus are not accepted at higher levels of academia. And before you suggest that they were only debunked by atheist scholars or something, that's just not true. There are plenty of Christian scholars who have come to the same conclusions.

Ohh?
?

 

[Robert.Evans]

The citations that are constantly given from Flavius and Josephus are not accepted at higher levels of academia. And before you suggest that they were only debunked by atheist scholars or something, that's just not true. There are plenty of Christian scholars who have come to the same conclusions.

You, as they, are entitled to your opinion. It matters not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is a good point. But I suppose anyone who is truly interested would search the net as I would. That is what we do isn't it... we find something that seems right, and then we research it. Point taken though.

It's not even a matter of time.

Take a similar modern phenomenon: alien abductions. Hundreds of people alive today claim to have been abducted by aliens. You can see first-hand accounts where these people describe their claimed experiences in detail. In many cases, these accounts agree with each other even though the people have never had any direct contact with each other. If you really wanted, you could track down these people and interview them yourself.

... but do I think they were actually abducted by aliens? No. And I'd bet that the average Resurrection-believing Christian doesn't think so either.

Even if the Resurrection was claimed to have happened yesterday, the evidence for it would be less than the evidence for alien abduction. Why should I accept it?

Yes, I agree that the passage of time probably hasn't helped your case, but it's not like it was particularly strong even in the first century.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Some thinking points:

1. Most of those people, priests, Romans would have been dead by the time the gospels were written - since people then were lucky to make it to age 40.

2. The gospel stories and Christianity did their best well away from their point of origin, where they would suffer the least contesting from naysayers. If gospel stories were uncontested they would have taken over the home region very quickly.

3. The gospels and Christianity were not seen as a threat or powerful movement until 100+ years after Jesus' death - doubtful it was seen as worth the effort of even contesting. It was a small blip on the mystery cult scene of that time.

Building on these points, I think it's telling that the older the date of the gospel, the less miraculous the story.

In Mark, we have a very secretive Jesus who tells the people he heals not to tell anyone what's happened, and the gospel ends (in the original ending, anyhow) without a resurrected Jesus at all; just an empty tomb and a bunch of confused and fearful disciples. It's only as the other gospels are written over the next several decades that miracle accounts start getting added onto this original story.

 

[Robert.Evans]

It's not even a matter of time.

Take a similar modern phenomenon: alien abductions. Hundreds of people alive today claim to have been abducted by aliens. You can see first-hand accounts where these people describe their claimed experiences in detail. In many cases, these accounts agree with each other even though the people have never had any direct contact with each other. If you really wanted, you could track down these people and interview them yourself.

... but do I think they were actually abducted by aliens? No. And I'd bet that the average Resurrection-believing Christian doesn't think so either.

Even if the Resurrection was claimed to have happened yesterday, the evidence for it would be less than the evidence for alien abduction. Why should I accept it?

Yes, I agree that the passage of time probably hasn't helped your case, but it's not like it was particularly strong even in the first century.

It is a spiritual resurrection which is spiritually discerned. It is not for those of the world.
So yes, I agree, it is difficult for a lot to comprehend.
Even then Muslims don't believe in it. So even believing in God is not the answer. We are given what we are given.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is a spiritual resurrection which is spiritually discerned. It is not for those of the world.
So yes, I agree, it is difficult for a lot to comprehend.
Even then Muslims don't believe in it. So even believing in God is not the answer. We are given what we are given.

This strikes me as excuse-making that someone engages in when they're trying to reconcile their a priori beliefs against a reality that doesn't support those beliefs with evidence. It's an argument that evidence exists but it's just conveniently unavailable, like the proverbial Canadian girlfriend ("we met at summer camp and we talk on the phone every night. She really wants to meet you guys here in Indiana, but shucks, she doesn't have a passport").

Also, the case that the OP laid out was not a matter of "spiritual" evidence; it was based entirely on "worldly" claims about regular historical evidence.

I've noticed that when theists think they have real evidence for their beliefs, they have no problem trying to use that real evidence to justify those beliefs and to argue for them with others. We see it not just here in this thread, but all over from those "science in the Qur'an" threads to arguments that Jesus was historical person. It's only when they don't have good evidence that they start pretending that they don't need evidence, as you're doing here.

 

[Robert.Evans]

This strikes me as excuse-making that someone engages in when they're trying to reconcile their a priori beliefs against a reality that doesn't support those beliefs with evidence. It's an argument that evidence exists but it's just conveniently unavailable, like the proverbial Canadian girlfriend ("we met at summer camp and we talk on the phone every night. She really wants to meet you guys here in Indiana, but shucks, she doesn't have a passport").

I guess that is one way of looking at it. I could say I have a pin number to my credit card, and you would have to believe it, because i am not going to show you. So if you don't want to believe, there is little I can do about it. Evidence of spiritual things is spiritual, metaphysical, by definition, that is the subject. sorry.
But the believe is backed up by evidence, but evidence is never accepted by those who also have a priori believe that there is no God. We all look for things to back up what we think is right. It is always interesting how one can see things so easily when it fits ones own argument. I saw that once on a comment section on one of Dawkins papers. He though Dawkins had won, I thought the other, and could not for the life of me see how he saw it otherwise. But that, sir, is what ignorance is. No disrespect.

Also, the case that the OP laid out was not a matter of "spiritual" evidence; it was based entirely on "worldly" claims about regular historical evidence.
I've noticed that when theists think they have real evidence for their beliefs, they have no problem trying to use that real evidence to justify those beliefs and to argue for them with others. We see it not just here in this thread, but all over from those "science in the Qur'an" threads to arguments that Jesus was historical person. It's only when they don't have good evidence that they start pretending that they don't need evidence, as you're doing here.

It is not pretending that we don't need evidence... haha. It is evidence. The proof is within us, WE are the evidence. A someone wiser than me said, 'We are living witnesses'. But everything points to the metaphysical, the invisible, the spiritual. So when the line is eventually crossed (which it will be) we will always start talking of REAL things, which to you will be nonsense no doubt. But that is why it is spiritual. It is within. It is always that which is within that counts, not the without. That is nothing... Lest you think perhaps that all things come from absolutely nothing... haha, I hope not!

The error that non-believers always make is to always expect to see things physically. If there is no physical evidence, there is no evidence. But that is not true, and you know that.

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

Six pages on this thread and everyone so far has failed to mention the zombies!

52The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.…Matt 27:52

When the gospels were written, NOBODY, not a single person from the people or the priests or the Romans ever came forward to say "HEY that never happened!"
We can therefore take them as..er.. gospel..

Why would anyone mention something that never happened? Have you ever heard anyone discuss a earthquake that didn't happen yesterday?

At the time of his death, Jesus was a minor figure of no special importance and the people which executed him surely saw this as "just another day in the office" and not the one of the most important events in history.

If there had been these various "signs" Pilate and his cohort would have abandoned Judea for Rome. Tiberius would have crossed off Judea as a lost cause as to not anger the God(s). Roman were still a superstitious lot that at times would make battle decisions off of bird signs.

Additionally, science can prove there was not a eclipse visible in that part of the world at that time.

 

[Robert.Evans]

52The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.…Matt 27:52

the dead were excommunicated and then reinstated... not literally dead.

Why would anyone mention something that never happened? Have you ever heard anyone discuss a earthquake that didn't happen yesterday?

At the time of his death, Jesus was a minor figure of no special importance and the people which executed him surely saw this as "just another day in the office" and not the one of the most important events in history.

it has to be said taht a lot was missed at the time, and only later was it revealed to them. Butif they had known, they would not have killed him would they... and that would have been a problem.

If there had been these various "signs" Pilate and his cohort would have abandoned Judea for Rome. Tiberius would have crossed off Judea as a lost cause as to not anger the God(s). Roman were still a superstitious lot that at times would make battle decisions off of bird signs.

things can be interpreted in different ways. We have no way of knowing exactly what they thought at the time. Most things mentioned are a name for something else.

Additionally, science can prove there was not a eclipse visible in that part of the world at that time.

Science can prove that there is according to the late Dr Martin. It is always interesting, no matter how many people agree, or whatever their credentials, someone else always seems to have equal evidence and opinion to say that the first is wrong. You pays your money and you takes your choice I guess.

It is probably not right to think of it as a spectacular event though. Everything was done in stealth. Only later was it understood.

 

[Skwim]

When the gospels were written, NOBODY, not a single person from the people or the priests or the Romans ever came forward to say "HEY that never happened!"
We can therefore take them as..er.. gospel..

Don't you mean any personal accounts that have survived to today? Who knows who objected. The winners do write the history, you know.

 

[jonathan180iq]

the dead were excommunicated and then reinstated... not literally dead.

I'd like to see the commentary or guide that gave you this idea - it is incorrect.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I guess that is one way of looking at it. I could say I have a pin number to my credit card, and you would have to believe it, because i am not going to show you. So if you don't want to believe, there is little I can do about it. Evidence of spiritual things is spiritual, metaphysical, by definition, that is the subject. sorry.

You could provide indirect evidence. For instance, even if you hide the keypad, I can infer that you know the PIN for your credit card by watching you take out a cash advance.

So-called spiritual phenomena should generally work the same way: even if we assume that the phenomenon itself is unobservable, if it has observable effects, then we can observe them and use this to infer that the phenomenon exists.

... and if it has no observable effects, then you had no good reason to believe in it in the first place. We can recognize that the claim is unsupported and weight it acccordingly (while acknowledging that it might be a coincidental right guess in an "a stopped clock is right twice a day" sort of way).

But the believe is backed up by evidence, but evidence is never accepted by those who also have a priori believe that there is no God.

What evidence? Please be specific. What's the best evidence you have for God?

We all look for things to back up what we think is right. It is always interesting how one can see things so easily when it fits ones own argument. I saw that once on a comment section on one of Dawkins papers. He though Dawkins had won, I thought the other, and could not for the life of me see how he saw it otherwise. But that, sir, is what ignorance is. No disrespect.

I've touched on this in other threads many times before: when two groups of people have diametrically opposed views but both people's viewpoints agree very well with what they observe in reality, this implies that the difference between those views - i.e. the thing they disagree on - doesn't actually have any effect on what is observed.

IOW, the fact that atheists and theists of every stripe can look at the world and think "yes, everything I see fits with my beliefs about God/gods" means one thing: God is completely irrelevant to everything we see.

It is not pretending that we don't need evidence... haha. It is evidence. The proof is within us, WE are the evidence. A someone wiser than me said, 'We are living witnesses'. But everything points to the metaphysical, the invisible, the spiritual. So when the line is eventually crossed (which it will be) we will always start talking of REAL things, which to you will be nonsense no doubt. But that is why it is spiritual. It is within. It is always that which is within that counts, not the without. That is nothing... Lest you think perhaps that all things come from absolutely nothing... haha, I hope not!

I get what you're talking about: you have a mental model of the world, and this model includes a God. You also see good agreement between your mental model and the world around you: your expectations aren't violated that often, so you take this as a sign that your model is sound. However, I question whether you actually test the "God" part of your mental model as much as you think you do.

The error that non-believers always make is to always expect to see things physically. If there is no physical evidence, there is no evidence. But that is not true, and you know that.

I do? If you have another form of evidence, please feel free to tell us what it is and explain why it's valid.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

the dead were excommunicated and then reinstated... not literally dead.

Does that apply to Jesus, too? Was his death not literal either?

 

[Robert.Evans]

You could provide indirect evidence. For instance, even if you hide the keypad, I can infer that you know the PIN for your credit card by watching you take out a cash advance.

Well I can only say that it was an analogy first, and it is not the ananlogy I am arguing. But in answer to it, i could show you the spiritual understanding of something, in other words, what it means. This in no way means you will accept it, anymore than someone might accept I have a pin number when it might well be a trick.

So-called spiritual phenomena should generally work the same way: even if we assume that the phenomenon itself is unobservable, if it has observable effects, then we can observe them and use this to infer that the phenomenon exists.

the 'observable effects' are the living witnesses. It is they that you should listen to. Perhaps you think it is going to do something physical. It is not about that. The inner change of the person (the hidden pin no') is what it is about. It is the hidden that is important: like the soul, like the mind. The mind has evidence as we see its actions, but it is an offshoot of the soul. The soul or Self is the real inner part, and it is that which is important

... and if it has no observable effects, then you had no good reason to believe in it in the first place. We can recognize that the claim is unsupported and weight it acccordingly (while acknowledging that it might be a coincidental right guess in an "a stopped clock is right twice a day" sort of way).

Again, I think you are looking for phsyical things. A materialist mindset will always look for outer things, which we should be looking for inner things. It shows you how much we trust in our five outer senses, even though those senses are told to us by the very mind that we can't see in the first place, and assume it is there. But where? Have you seen one?

What evidence? Please be specific. What's the best evidence you have for God?

The inner witness of the son of God. That is personal. It means it is hidden from those who would steal it within the higher-consciousness, and those that might be jealous here. I think that is neat.
You look for the outer evidence, such as the sun being a fractal representation of God, and the moon being the same of the son of God: hence the reason it mediates between God and Man (earth). That is physical evidence. There are others. But it makes no difference. You may put up many signs pointing the way, it does not mean one will walk it.

I've touched on this in other threads many times before: when two groups of people have diametrically opposed views but both people's viewpoints agree very well with what they observe in reality, this implies that the difference between those views - i.e. the thing they disagree on - doesn't actually have any effect on what is observed.
IOW, the fact that atheists and theists of every stripe can look at the world and think "yes, everything I see fits with my beliefs about God/gods" means one thing: God is completely irrelevant to everything we see.

It means there are many realities many worlds, and that all things work within the greater good of the Self that we come from. For example, there is good evidence to say evolution is correct; there is good evidence to say creationism or ID is correct. They both have good points, that is why there are scientists on both sides who agree with their own stance.

Now, if they understood that consciousness is everything, and it is evolving everything we see, then through that consciousness (mind-intelligence) we see the 'creation' side, and through the evolving of that consciousness, we see the evolution side. They both work. They work together. People like to join a side to throw stones at the other side. That is what they are so that is what they follow. It is their own self.

I get what you're talking about: you have a mental model of the world, and this model includes a God. You also see good agreement between your mental model and the world around you: your expectations aren't violated that often, so you take this as a sign that your model is sound. However, I question whether you actually test the "God" part of your mental model as much as you think you do.

The mental model is a good explanation, as all things are effected that way in the mind, and we all do it. In other words, if it seems to answer everything, it if seems to be a good answer, its probably because it is right. Why then doubt it? Perhaps the answer to that is we feel deep down we don't belong to the club
I question it a lot. But ultimately, we have what God gives us, as you do. You sound like a non-believer to me, so that is your lot. Perhaps it will change. Who knows?

I do? If you have another form of evidence, please feel free to tell us what it is and explain why it's valid.

Firstly, 'evidence' means 'something that leads one to a conclusion or judgment about something'. That means anything can be evidence, including written testimony. I think there is a fundamental problem in understanding what that word means, and, as an atheist once said to me, it is PHYSICAL evidence that they want to see. But I cannot show physical evidence of things which no longer exist, or that have changed form, or that are invisible, or consciousness, or yesterday, or people who lived in the ancient past. I can show things which might point to that, but that is it.

All things ultimately belong in the mind, whether we like it or not. Scripture is the first evidence once your mind is opened. Then once you understand the fractal nature of the divine, it begins to reveal itself in many ways. But as with all things, it is personal. We all make up our own minds, or at least it appears that way. Our minds are already made up, we just follow them.. haha

 

[Robert.Evans]

Does that apply to Jesus, too? Was his death not literal either?

The Essenes were looking for two Messiahs, one priestly, one lay. One died, one did not. Hence one eats food, one is resurrected spiritually. It is the scapegoat, the left and right, good and evil, the spiritually the natural, the two sides of the coin.

Perhaps you don't think that there were two. Then recall the riddle: How does an all powerful God make something so heavy it can't lift it?