Why Don’t You Believe Jesus Rose From The Grave?

[sayak83]

If God can create life, I don't see why he could not restore life also. This regular life is as great miracle as would be to raise someone from death.

But, this is interesting matter. If we give scientists a dead cell, that has all parts for functional cell, they can't make it living. What can be the missing thing that causes life? At the moment it seems only God can give life.

A dead cell does not have all the parts of a living cell.
Just as a dead motherboard does not have all the parts of a functioning motherboard.
From wiki

Necrosis is an unprogrammed death of cells, which involves early plasma membrane changes leading to loss of calcium and sodium imbalance. This causes acidosis, osmotic shock, clumping of chromatin and nuclear pyknosis. These changes are accompanied by a loss of oxidative phosphorylation, a drop in ATP production, and a loss of homeostatic capability. There are also mitochondrial changes which include calcium overload and activation of phospholipases leading to membrane diffusion signals, a stage of irreversible damage. The secondary stage involves swelling of the lysosome, dilation of the endoplasmic reticulum, a leakage of enzymes and proteins and a loss of compartmentalization.

 

[King Phenomenon]

Why don't I believe that Jesus existed as depicted, and rose from the grave? Well, mostly because I don't believe God exists, and hence the truthfulness of any so-called prophets including Jesus Christ. Religions seem to need some kind of unique selling point to persuade people as to believing in them and such supposed miracles like this is just one way to do this. The afterlife is another obvious carrot as to enticing people into having such beliefs, and perhaps why so many religions do have such as part of their doctrine. And to me, religious texts are simply not verifiable as having that kind of authority to be acceptable as proper evidence rather than what they should be seen as - simply being of their times.

But even if there is a God I still doubt the truth of religions simply based on the probabilities of so many different belief systems occurring, the differences between them, the truth of any particular one, and the deficits of having so many, given that they do conflict so often and tend to cause aggressions and even wars - as shown by history and the present.

Yes, out of all the different religions and belief systems there’s only one spiritual truth. I find that fascinating. I’m not saying I know what that one truth is. That truth could be outside of religions, but it definitely exists.

 

[Quintessence]

Yeah, I wasn’t talking about the whole Bible. I’m talking about one isolated event. Jesus’ resurrection of which 70% of Christian‘s believe is true.

I look forward to reading your research demonstrating this to be the case. Where can I read your research article? Do you work for PEW Research or a similarly respected surveying research firm or university?

 

[King Phenomenon]

I look forward to reading your research demonstrating this to be the case. Where can I read your research article? Do you work for PEW Research or a similarly respected surveying research firm or university?

I’ve been around enough Christians to know.

 

[Quintessence]

I’ve been around enough Christians to know.

I've been around enough Christians to know differently. Now what?

That's what research and academic standards are for. Proper research methodology captures representative samples that transcend personal biases, which is important for knowing what's really going on. Until you have that, just making up numbers holds no weight to anyone except yourself. If that's good enough for you, so be it, but don't expect anyone else to find it compelling.

 

[F1fan]

The resurrection story is just one of those things that historians see as having been there as part of the gospel from before it was written down. Christians believed it from the start and there is no reason to think that it was added on later.

How the myth of Jesus was created is an interesting bit of history. It includes the evolution of Christian belief and the establishment of the Bible in the 4th century that explains how and why believers had a set dogma to believe in.

Modern history does not accept the supernatural. In theory it is supposed to treat it in a neutral way but in practice the dating of the gospels and authorship are worked out with the assumption that the supernatural events did not happen. This is circular reasoning.

No it's not. There is no reason to assume a supernatural exists, and that implausible events actually occured. The work of historians is to find evidence that things actually happened, and it's a high bar to find anything that backs up a literal reading of the Gospels. There may be true bits and pieces, but that isn't enough evidence to accept the supernatural events. And let's not ignore how absurd the whole Jesus myth is. It works vastly better symbolically.

And of course the whole gospel story cannot be seen as history also because of the supernatural elements in it and surrounding it.

Right. But that is the dilemma for the Abrahamic religions, and that's the literalist approach they take. Judaism does a better job of reading the Old Testament as symbolism, and Christians and Muslims should learn from them.

Christians admit that they have a faith. If people believe the gospel is not true, that also is a belief not based on facts.

This is inaccurate language from a logic approach. No one needs facts that some outrageous claim isn't true. The claim is that the Gospels are true, and critical thinkers reject this claim due to a lack of evidence. Remember, the claims of truth have the burden of proof, and the default is that truth is factual and consistent with what we accept as reality. Christians claim the Gospels are true, and skeptics aren't convinced.

When I was a kid I was like most other people in the USA anmd told the Bible is true, and Jesus saves, etc. It was my natural skepticism that led me to ask questions that the rest of my 12 siblings and cousins did not. I watched my cousins adopt their parents religiious views without asking the questions I asked. It was interesting to watch my Catholic cousins feel obligated to go to Mass on Christmas Eve, usually opting for Midnight Mass so they could get it over with and have all day on the 25th to enjoy freedom.

It is reasonable however to believe in the literal Jesus of the gospels.

Then why aren't there logical arguments for this claim? How is it reasonable to believe this fantastic claim?

 

[King Phenomenon]

I've been around enough Christians to know differently. Now what?

That's what research and academic standards are for. Proper research methodology captures representative samples that transcend personal biases, which is important for knowing what's really going on. Until you have that, just making up numbers holds no weight to anyone except yourself. If that's good enough for you, so be it, but don't expect anyone else to find it compelling.

You might want to go back and ask some Christians. Also, the poll you posted earlier has no specifics on Jesus rising from the dead.

 

[firedragon]

Feel free to share your thoughts.

I don't believe that because I don't see provenance for that story. I mean solid provenance.

 

[F1fan]

If God can create life, I don't see why he could not restore life also. This regular life is as great miracle as would be to raise someone from death.

The same for Dr. Frankenstein. But like him God is not a known reality. It's easy for believers to just add more belief to what they believe as a solution to logical problems. That doesn't work for critical thinkers who seek truth.

But, this is interesting matter. If we give scientists a dead cell, that has all parts for functional cell, they can't make it living. What can be the missing thing that causes life? At the moment it seems only God can give life.

Cells have conditions that are necessary for them to work, and outside those conditions they don't work. If you don't water a house plant and it dries out you can't bring it back to life. The cells that make up the plant need a stable condition to keep functioning. Once dead they stay dead even though you have a bunch of dried leaves.

And let's note that no one has any knowledge of any gods existing, so they can't be cited or claimed as a source for life if your interest is truth.

 

[Quintessence]

You might want to go back and ask some Christians. Also, the poll you posted earlier has no specifics on Jesus rising from the dead.

Yes, which is why you do more research instead of pulling numbers out of our rear ends. But, based on the data we do have, it seems very likely you are wrong. Why don't you sponsor this research study? Could be fun! Then again, I'm a survey methodology and all around research nerd so... you might not find it fun.

 

[King Phenomenon]

Yes, which is why you do more research instead of pulling numbers out of our rear ends. But, based on the data we do have, it seems very likely you are wrong. Why don't you sponsor this research study? Could be fun! Then again, I'm a survey methodology and all around research nerd so... you might not find it fun.

Your polls say nothing about how many people were surveyed

 

[Quintessence]

Your polls say nothing about how many people were surveyed

Yes they do - you can go read the article. PEW is very forward about making its entire methodology available to read. I included the link when I put in that quote. I'll save you a read - PEW uses sound methodology to get a representative sample of the populations they survey.

 

[King Phenomenon]

Yes they do - you can go read the article. PEW is very forward about making its entire methodology available to read. I included the link when I put in that quote. I'll save you a read - PEW uses sound methodology to get a representative sample of the populations they survey.

I read it. Doesn’t say how many were surveyed.

 

[Brian2]

How the myth of Jesus was created is an interesting bit of history. It includes the evolution of Christian belief and the establishment of the Bible in the 4th century that explains how and why believers had a set dogma to believe in.

How can that be called history?

No it's not. There is no reason to assume a supernatural exists, and that implausible events actually occured. The work of historians is to find evidence that things actually happened, and it's a high bar to find anything that backs up a literal reading of the Gospels. There may be true bits and pieces, but that isn't enough evidence to accept the supernatural events. And let's not ignore how absurd the whole Jesus myth is. It works vastly better symbolically.

It is circular reasoning to assume that the supernatural in the gospels is not true and then to use that assumption to try to show that the supernatural in the gospels is not true.
There are a number of sources that claim to be reports of witnesses and which say that the supernatural happened.
To not accept those reports is to say that evidence for the supernatural is not allowed until it is proven that the supernatural exists.

Right. But that is the dilemma for the Abrahamic religions, and that's the literalist approach they take. Judaism does a better job of reading the Old Testament as symbolism, and Christians and Muslims should learn from them.

It's not a dilemma for me even if it is a dilemma for you and others who don't seem to like the idea that the supernatural exists and has been witnessed.

This is inaccurate language from a logic approach. No one needs facts that some outrageous claim isn't true. The claim is that the Gospels are true, and critical thinkers reject this claim due to a lack of evidence. Remember, the claims of truth have the burden of proof, and the default is that truth is factual and consistent with what we accept as reality. Christians claim the Gospels are true, and skeptics aren't convinced.

When I was a kid I was like most other people in the USA anmd told the Bible is true, and Jesus saves, etc. It was my natural skepticism that led me to ask questions that the rest of my 12 siblings and cousins did not. I watched my cousins adopt their parents religiious views without asking the questions I asked. It was interesting to watch my Catholic cousins feel obligated to go to Mass on Christmas Eve, usually opting for Midnight Mass so they could get it over with and have all day on the 25th to enjoy freedom.

It isn't outrageous to believe in God, the creator, and that God can do miracles imo
It is just what we should expect from the creator God.

Then why aren't there logical arguments for this claim? How is it reasonable to believe this fantastic claim?

How is it logical to reject the supernatural experiences of people because of our incredulity. That sounds like the incredulity fallacy.
If you believe in the supernatural because of the experiences of others it is a faith.
If you reject those experiences because of incredulity it is a faith also.
There is no big claim of logical truth that a non believer can call on,,,,,,,,,,,, it's just either belief in the truth of a story or belief in the non truth of the story.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

How the myth of Jesus was created is an interesting bit of history. It includes the evolution of Christian belief and the establishment of the Bible in the 4th century that explains how and why believers had a set dogma to believe in.

A lot of Christians believe that the Bible is accurate because it includes actual locations that exist today. They will use this reasoning in an effort to support their belief that the Bible was divinely inspired by God. However, Greek mythology predates the Bible and contains references to factual places in Greece, as well as references to multiple gods and goddesses. Like the Bible, which cites several factual places, Greek mythology also cites several factual places in Greece, including Athens, Crete, Delphi, Thebes, and Mount Olympus. But I've never met a Christian who believes Zeus, Hera, Ares, and Athena (as well as the other gods and goddesses) are real deities, despite the fact that there are references to actual sites in Greece that they could visit today, just as there are actual sites referenced in the Bible that they could visit today. I've met Christians who tried to use archaeological discoveries of biblical locations to claim that the Bible is true, but the same can be done with Greek mythology. Do archaeological discoveries prove that Greek mythology is also true?

6 Famous Greek Mythology Locations

Greek Mythological Sites You Can Still Visit Today

Where should I go to see sites from Greek mythology?

 

[George-ananda]

Feel free to share your thoughts.

My leading thought from channeled sources is that he was near death but recovered in the tomb with yogic practices.

Also, my other thought is His message of love and morality is much more important than the circumstances of his birth and death.

 

[Quintessence]

I read it. Doesn’t say how many were surveyed.

It does - you need to a very small amount of work to click into the larger survey this data was part of - but "how many" is also irrelevant and the wrong question to ask. The margin of error for their sample size is less than 1%.

 

[King Phenomenon]

It does - you need to a very small amount of work to click into the larger survey this data was part of - but "how many" is also irrelevant and the wrong question to ask. The margin of error for their sample size is less than 1%.

Ok

 

[Brian2]

A lot of Christians believe that the Bible is accurate because it includes actual locations that exist today. They will use this reasoning in an effort to support their belief that the Bible was divinely inspired by God. However, Greek mythology predates the Bible and contains references to factual places in Greece, as well as references to multiple gods and goddesses. Like the Bible, which cites several factual places, Greek mythology also cites several factual places in Greece, including Athens, Crete, Delphi, Thebes, and Mount Olympus. But I've never met a Christian who believes Zeus, Hera, Ares, and Athena (as well as the other gods and goddesses) are real deities, despite the fact that there are references to actual sites in Greece that they could visit today, just as there are actual sites referenced in the Bible that they could visit today. I've met Christians who tried to use archaeological discoveries of biblical locations to claim that the Bible is true, but the same can be done with Greek mythology. Do archaeological discoveries prove that Greek mythology is also true?

6 Famous Greek Mythology Locations

Greek Mythological Sites You Can Still Visit Today

Where should I go to see sites from Greek mythology?

I imagine that the story you give begins with non believers claiming that the Bible and Gospels are not true because it is not historical and certain places that have been mentioned do not exist and other historical details mentioned are not accurate.
It is then that the believers go to the trouble of showing that those non believer claims are not true.
This however does not mean that the Bible and gospels are true, it means that the historical details in the stories are true.
Alas it makes no difference to the non believers even when all the places and historical details have been shown to be true and accurate.

 

[F1fan]

How can that be called history?

Because it is recorded activity by humans. Do you think how humans created religion, and wrote and edited religious texts, aren't history?

It is circular reasoning to assume that the supernatural in the gospels is not true and then to use that assumption to try to show that the supernatural in the gospels is not true.
There are a number of sources that claim to be reports of witnesses and which say that the supernatural happened.

No it isn't. Circular reasoning is thinking the supernatural elements in Bible stories are true because the Bible says it's true.

To not accept those reports is to say that evidence for the supernatural is not allowed until it is proven that the supernatural exists.

There is no evidence for the supernatural. It is only claims. That is why it is rejected.

If supernatural phenomenon were observed quite often then that would be empiricle understanding that it's resal, and we could assume and accept that the Bible stories are true. But we don't. So you're out of luck.

It's not a dilemma for me even if it is a dilemma for you and others who don't seem to like the idea that the supernatural exists and has been witnessed.

You're not seeking truth, so it's not a dilemma that there's a lack of evidence for Christian concepts. You're a dogmatist, and your interest is defending your dogma, period.

It isn't outrageous to believe in God, the creator, and that God can do miracles imo
It is just what we should expect from the creator God.

There's no basis in reality for any of this. That makes it outrageous. Like I said, your interest is your adopted dogma, not seeking what is true about how things are.

How is it logical to reject the supernatural experiences of people because of our incredulity. That sounds like the incredulity fallacy.

Notice how critical thinkers don't have experiences that are interpreted as supernatural. That's because they aren't creating the illusion of a supernatural experience. If you have ever masturbated it isn't a sexual experience with another person, but your body is responding as if it is. That is what our minds can do to satisfy itself. Believers want to believe they are having supernatural experiences, and that is what their minds create. It comes with self-deception.

If you believe in the supernatural because of the experiences of others it is a faith.

And that is what theists learn from other theists. Jim says he has a close and personal relationship with Jesus, and you want to be like Jim.

If you reject those experiences because of incredulity it is a faith also.

I reject the claims theists make of their expriences because they can't provide evidence. I would at least be impressed if some ordinary Christian suddenly found a certain peace and deep wisdom after they had a religious eprience. But we don't. And many are still quite filled with vice and negative attitudes. Not a good advocate for God.

There is no big claim of logical truth that a non believer can call on,,,,,,,,,,,, it's just either belief in the truth of a story or belief in the non truth of the story.

Two things: critical thinkers don't need some dogma that defines who they are nor provides meaning. And we all have access to knowledge, and that conforms to a logical process that values facts, and avoids assumptions. It's not uncommon for believers to have some disdain for facts and knowledge.