What Real Evidence Exists for The Resurrection?

[godnotgod]

What ab out Spongs argument that belief in literal resurrection was not part of early Christianity?

At least bodily resurrection was not part of Yeshua's view.

 

[Copernicus]

What ab out Spongs argument that belief in literal resurrection was not part of early Christianity?

What evidence is there to back up this claim?

 

[sandandfoam]

What evidence is there to back up this claim?

He uses the Bible itself as evidence. His argument (in a New Christianity for a New World) is that taken chronologically literal resurrection is not mentioned in those books written closest to the time of Christ but only appears in the (relatively) later ones.

 

[godnotgod]

We have the claim that a being was transported to another world after its dead body was returned to life. It isn’t a question of where and when those events took place, or a matter to be settled by testimony or scholarly analysis.

godnotgod said: That is not what I was saying. All I said is that, simply because those events allegedly occurred in time and place, it makes them historical.

But so what?

I am not discussing this from the point of view that they actually occurred, but from the point of view of the Christian believer.

 

[sandandfoam]

I am not discussing this from the point of view that they actually occurred, but from the point of view of the Christian believer.

These views are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Copernicus]

He uses the Bible itself as evidence. His argument (in a New Christianity for a New World) is that taken chronologically literal resurrection is not mentioned in those books written closest to the time of Christ but only appears in the (relatively) later ones.

I'm not opposed to the inference that early Christians took the resurrection as a symbolic event, but it is still based on speculation from a pattern of lack of evidence. It is more reasonable to assume that there were differences of opinion among early Christian sects. Belief in the literal resurrection won out when orthodox Christianity swept the Empire.

 

[footprints]

No, it does not, because, since the Resurrection, like the Invisible Pink Unicorn, has no real evidence to support it. Therefore, for all practical purposes, it never happened, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn is a complete fabrication.

Oh I get it, one rule for you and a different rule for everybody else. You really must believe you are the choosen one.

The rule is simple, make a claim, support it. Taking a position based on a lack of evidence is taking a position on Blind Faith.

No, it is not. Christianity claims it is a historical fact, and that places it squarely into the realm of logic and reason, both of which demand evidence to support such alleged facts. Sorry.

And you claim it is not a historical fact, that it didn't take place. Which logic and reason demand evidence to support this alleged claim.

My evidence is that there is no evidence to demonstrate that the Resurrection is a fact. That is solid evidence.

And I can agree with that, as I can agree with the fact, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the resurrection isn't a fact.

I did not advance the first claim, that the Resurrection is a fact. This thread is not about ME supplying evidence to prove the Resurrection fallacious, but for Christians to provide evidence to prove their initial claim. Your logic is completely faulty, since I did not first advance the claim that Jesus did not resurrect. That would be ridiculous. My demand for evidence is due to the fact that the Christian is making a preposterous claim without having anything to back it up. That's all. The burden of proof is not on me, but on the Christian. If he is making the claim, and then cannot back it up, I can only assume that the Resurrection is fallacious, since to be a fact we need evidence. That is how facts are determined.

Who cares when you lodged your claim. The fact remains is you make a claim.

I already supplied the evidence for my claim, and that is that there is no evidence from the Christian camp. My evidence is clear and unmistakable.

Not so clear and unmistakable, from what I have read so far, many people didn't buy your perceptional evidence. Your evidence works for you and others who hold your belief pattern, but other people hold different beliefs.

The Resurrection is a lie.

So your perception keeps telling you.

Your entire argument is trashed, due to faulty logic.

Of course it is.

Once again, the burden of proof lies with those who present the claim in the first place.

I am sure that sounds logical and reasonable to you, from your belief pattern. So what you are saying then, is that anybody can now make any other claim, and not have to support it? For example, I could say, a soul was resurrected from a body and ascended to heaven last Thursday, and not have to support this claim. Well thank you for filling me in on this rule of logic and reason.

Don't be coy by cleverly trying to transfer the burden to the non-Christian. We are under no obligation to prove anything. If the Christian cannot come forth with support for his preposterous claim, he needs to put up or xxxx up. Really. If he retreats into his phony faith based position, he can go into the closet and blow his brains out with his phantoms, if he wishes to do so. Just don't try to foist his phantom on me. I have already crushed the cave of phantoms. :yes:

Heaven forbid, I wouldn't try to make any non-Christian responsible and accountable for their own actions, not when they have Christians to blame everything on.

If any non-Christian retreats to their own phantom world, let us just humour them, and say they are doing it for the same logic and reason you have given thus far.

 

[footprints]

You have the cart ahead of the horse. No, the purpose of the resurrection is NOT debate and friction; it is the unintentional OUTCOME. Because it is unintentional, it cannot be its purpose. My question has to do with the function the Resurrection serves to man's soul, and no one has answered that yet. Therefore, the support for the Resurrection fails on two counts: those of factual evidence and of faith. What else is left?


On top of that, God must be an idiot, knowing that staging a silly thing like the Resurrection/Ascension, which few if any actually witnessed, would cause such fallout. God, in effect, is creating divisiveness and discord amongst man. We are clearly looking at man's mind here, one which concocted the ridiculous idea of the Resurrection out of whole cloth. That much is obvious to anyone who has eyes in his head. No intelligent God would do such a thing.

Besides, if you look very closely, you can see the wires attached to Jesus's body as he ascends into the sky.

Whatever sort of outcome, it is the outcome. That is what the evidence most strongly suggests. Fullstop. Period.

 

[footprints]

You got it wrong. Essentially, all those beliefs in resurrection are actually one belief, spread out amongst several god-men, Jesus being the one with which the one belief came down to us.

Keep justifying.

It is not a belief, because there is no doctrine attached to what I am saying. The Resurrection never happened not because of any belief, but because there is no evidence that it DID happen. It is purely a concoction of those who want to entertain such fantasies. The real question is why they choose to do so.

Of course you couldn't have a belief, the doctrine you are referring to is all in your head.

I have smelled them ascending into heaven with my own eyes.:angel2:

This wouldn't surprise me, I am sure you have.

Some even ascend into heaven sandwiched between Triscuits.:yes:

I believe you, this is what you would see.

Ha..ha...ha..Just wait til the Palestinians get there and we continue the bloodshed in heaven between the children of light and the children of darkness. Jews in heaven my asss!

I hope you have fun, you do appear to like wars.

I just gave it to you. Christianity claims it is the one true faith, and that its God is the true God. That is compartmentalizing the truth, therefore it is not the truth. Can anyone claim the sun's rays as their own, or that the sun favors them for some strange reason? Some will try.

How dare Christians claim to have the one true faith. How come they don't know it is you who has the one true faith? How unreasonable can some Christians get? They should just follow your faith and belief without questioning it, shouldn't they?

Yes you are. I explained it already.

You explained your belief pattern to me.

I never condemned them. I just said they are delusional. They have no evidence; I do.

LOL and saying they are delusional isn't condemning them. I will have to remember you do not consider calling a person or group of people delusional as condemnation.

As for evidence they have just as much personal evidence to support their case as you do.

Mine is not a faith based argument, but one of direct insight into the nature of the Christian belief system, based upon what THEY say.

No yours is faith based, you just want it based on what you say.

I have no such belief. You will be waiting for quite a long while.

Of course you don't.

I was unaware of your agnostic position. It sounded initially as if you were supporting the belief in the Resurrection.

Bit delusional of you.

Where you and I differ, however, is that you are taking a middle ground, neither believing nor not-believing. I have made up my mind about the matter.

Hmmm, and you still maintain you have no faith or belief....... Interesting.

There remains no question in my mind that the Resurrection is a complete fabrication. I make that statement not as a matter of faith, but as a matter of seeing that it is a substantial, delusional idea to begin with.

I am sure you have answered all questions to the comfort of your own mind.

Having said that, I suspect that Yeshua (there is no such person as Jesus) survived the Crucifixion and some of his followers DID see him afterwards. The Ascension is pure fantasy. The story is picked up from this point on by the Buddhist monastery in Kashimir, which has textual evidence to support that he was there.

Sounds a bit to fanciful for my liking, albeit you stick with your faith and belief, it is your choice in life.

 

[Klaufi_Wodensson]

Personally, I believe that the people who "saw" Jesus after he died are just like the people who saw Elvis after he died.

 

[footprints]

Personally, I believe that the people who "saw" Jesus after he died are just like the people who saw Elvis after he died.

I saw Elvis on the telly, the other week, does this make me delusional or suggest that Elvis never existed?

 

[godnotgod]

How dare Christians claim to have the one true faith. How come they don't know it is you who has the one true faith? How unreasonable can some Christians get? They should just follow your faith and belief without questioning it, shouldn't they?

Claiming that you have the one true faith based upon your beliefs is not the same as seeing the truth as it is. Belief is always based upon thought. Seeing the truth directly is not. Belief is accompanied by doctrine. Direct seeing is doctrineless, and therefore is not something that can be followed. Doctrine attempts to encapsulate reality; Direct seeing, without thought, only sees, without grasping. Therefore, it cannot compartmentalize and formulate in order to create doctrines of right and wrong.

LOL and saying they are delusional isn't condemning them.

A psychiatrist may diagnose someone as delusional. That does not mean he is condemning them. Delusional people claim things that do not exist, such as resurrections and ascensions.

As for evidence they have just as much personal evidence to support their case as you do.

If they did, they might have presented it by now. Instead, it has been over 2000 years, and many find their 'personal evidence' unconvincing. Did you think I was the only one challenging their silly claim?

I am sure you have answered all questions to the comfort of your own mind.

There are just some things that eventually show themselves to be fallacious. The Resurrection and Ascension are two of them. It is not a counter belief or doctrine that I formulate and present against theirs; it is just a matter of seeing it for what it is. Phony. I have asked several times for someone to illustrate some viable function that the Resurrection serves for man's soul. No one can come up with anything more than that it creates friction and debate. That is completely ridiculous, and we know it. The Resurrection is empty glitter and fluff. Very expensive fluff, a prop used by Christians to showcase how their religion trumps all others.

As I said, I have made a decision about this. That does not mean I have closed my mind. It is simply that the Resurrection makes little sense. If anyone can demonstrate otherwise, I am all ears.

 

[godnotgod]

Whatever sort of outcome, it is the outcome. That is what the evidence most strongly suggests. Fullstop. Period.

Yes, best you do stop here, lest your fallacious logic carry you into more friction and debate as you go round and round and round with your tail wagging the dog logic.

 

[godnotgod]

I saw Elvis on the telly, the other week, does this make me delusional or suggest that Elvis never existed?

But did you also see Jesus on the telly?

 

[Smoke]

But did you also see Jesus on the telly?

One time I did. He looked remarkably like Max von Sydow.

 

[godnotgod]

Know what's funny? Zen Buddhists, who never advertise the fact, see Jesus, Buddha, Mary and others all the time, standing right in front of them, in full, living color. This happens every year during intensive meditation sessions known as sesshin. Countless reports of Jesus sightings right inside the Zen zendo. The students come into the roshi's private chambers, breathing hot and heavy, all excited:

Student: "Roshi! I saw Buddha! There he was, standing right in front of me!"

Roshi: "Yes, I know. Now I want you to return quietly to your meditation mat and focus on your breath."

Student: "But, roshi, I actually saw him, for real!"

Roshi: "Yes, of course you did. Now go"

The roshi is a roshi partly because he's already been there, done that himself.

Zen people keep their delusions within the Zen temple. They know how to handle them before they are mistaken for a doctrine peddled as truth.

Unfortunately, Christianity broke away from the three tiered mystical Essene teaching of Yeshua, carrying with them only the first tier. They never developed a deeper understanding of the inner mysteries. Is it any wonder that they became a boisterous, cacaphonous, and superficial bunch, their drama filled with conflict, super-sensational events, apocalypse, prophecy, and death, a continuous boiling cauldron in which reality is never actually seen. It is a religion which never quite arrives, all of its members having to wait and die first before tasting the elixirs of Paradise. Such a waste! Reminds me of those cartoons of skeletons in the desert, hand outreached for a glass of water only a foot away.

Zen flesh...

Zen bones.

 

[godnotgod]

One time I did. He looked remarkably like Max von Sydow.

Yeah, that Jesus feller sure was a good actor. Almost fooled me. Until I saw St. Paul pulling his strings.

 

[godnotgod]

"It's said in the teachings that if you hold on to your belief there will be conflict. There's a wonderful story about this. There was a god who knew how men and women love to believe things to be true and make clubs and religions and political systems with the people who agree with them. They just love to make something out of nothing and then write its name on a big banner and march down the street waving it and yelling and screaming, only to have people who believe the opposite come toward them with their banner, yelling and screaming. This god decided to try to prove a point about the human condition so that people might, in seeing the absurdity of it, have a good laugh. He constructed a big hat divided right down the middle, the left side of which was brilliant blue and the right side flaming red. Then he went to a place where many people were working in the fields on the left side of a road and many other people were working in the fields on the right side of the road. There the god manifested in all his glory; no one could miss him. Big and radiant, wearing his hat, he walked straight down the road. All the people on the right side of the road dropped their hoes and looked up at this god; all the people on the left side of the road did the same. Everybody was amazed. Then he disappeared. Everyone shouted, "We saw God! We saw God!" They were all full of joy, until someone on the left said, "There he was in all his radiance and in his red hat!" And people on the right said, "No, he had on a blue hat." This disagreement escalated until the people built walls and began to throw stones at each other. Then the god appeared again. This time he walked in the other direction and then disappeared. Now all the people looked at each other and the ones on the right said, "Ah, you were right, he did have on a red hat. We're so sorry, we just saw incorrectly. You were right and we were wrong." The ones on the other side said, "No, no. You were right. We were wrong." At this point they didn't know whether to fight or to make friends. Most of them were completely puzzled by the situation. Then the god appeared again. This time he stood in the middle and he turned to the left and then he turned around to the right, and everyone started to laugh."

Pema Chodron, The Wisdom of No Escape

http://www.shambhala.com/html/learn/features/pema/books/excerpts/wisdom-excerpt.cfm

 

[cottage]

I am not discussing this from the point of view that they actually occurred, but from the point of view of the Christian believer.

I'm sorry, but with respect you are not! The subject of the thread is: 'What real evidence exists for the Resurrection?' And, giving you full credit for your opening post, you explained articulately and comprehensively why there cannot be any real evidence, to include the reason given below.

'To jump to the unfounded conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead is the least plausible explanation. Once dead, humans tend to stay that way. In fact, all humans since the first have done so.'

'The point of the Christian believer' is incidental or irrelevant to real evidence.

 

[godnotgod]

I'm sorry, but with respect you are not! The subject of the thread is: 'What real evidence exists for the Resurrection?' And, giving you full credit for your opening post, you explained articulately and comprehensively why there cannot be any real evidence, to include the reason given below.

'To jump to the unfounded conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead is the least plausible explanation. Once dead, humans tend to stay that way. In fact, all humans since the first have done so.'

'The point of the Christian believer' is incidental or irrelevant to real evidence.

You can stick to that part of the discussion if you wish. I am not obligated to strictly adhere to discussion of evidence only. I see the issue of evidence and Christian belief as being inter related in the overall discussion. You might say that my point in presenting the topic in the first place is to get to the core of Christian doctrine. We are discussing the evidence in the context of the Christian doctrine.