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

[Madsaac]

Feel free to share your thoughts.

Do you not see at all how silly it sounds to think a human was dead and then came back to life? It's ridiculous.

Do you believe I saw Aunt Gladys flying over Sydney last night.

 

[Brian2]

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

Recorded activity by humans is history, but you don't seem to be talking about that.

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

No, believing the Bible is not circular reasoning.

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.

The supernatural is recorded history in the Bible and it is observed quite often over a period of a couple of thousand years.
The history of the supernatural observations is called "only claims" even when the same events are confirmed by others. So I say that the evidence for the supernatural is rejected until the supernatural is proven to be a fact.
But yes you are right when you say that the supernatural is rejected. However in "scholarly history" the supernatural is to be treated neutrally, as if the truth of it is not proven either way. That does not happen. What happens is that the supernatural is treated as if it is not true and conclusions are drawn from using that assumption. THAT is why the dating and authorship of the gospels for example is circular reasoning.

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.

I am interested in defending the truth of the gospels against arguments that do not show them to be untrue.
Many unbelievers seem to want to assume that the gospels are not true until proven to be true. That's fine, and you can do that if you like.

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.

My adopted beliefs is what I have determined to be true about how things are and which I defend from attacks from those who have made themselves enemies of those beliefs and who want to preach their anti gospel beliefs to the world.

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.

Your non belief still sounds like the incredulity fallacy.

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.

God changes people in His own way and all people are different and God deals with each one accordingly. The evil deeds of Christians is not a good advocate for God but thinking that God clicks His fingers and somehow forces people to be good all the time is just a false understanding of the New Testament and of what happens.

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.

Not completely true, as I can point to assumptions used by people who like to be known as critical thinkers, and those critical thinkers can't see them.
But it is true that many believers reject things things that you might call facts. I suppose an example might be my rejection of your saying that the Jesus story is a myth and that it is history (or historical fact) that it is a created myth.

 

[Brian2]

Do you not see at all how silly it sounds to think a human was dead and then came back to life? It's ridiculous.

Do you believe I saw Aunt Gladys flying over Sydney last night.

Yes it is silly to think a human was dead and then came back to life.
That is probably what made the resurrection of Jesus such a life changing event for the apostles and disciples, even for Thomas who would not believe till he saw and put his fingers in Jesus wounds etc.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Feel free to share your thoughts.

Thanks for the invitation. Please know that I'm not really trying to convince anyone. If you believe Jesus rose from the dead, I'm fine with that. I'm only here to share my thoughts, since you asked so nicely.

Why don't I believe Jesus rose from the dead? Because dead people don't come back, at least, not those who have progressed to brain death.

My assumption is that the historical foundation for the resurrection myth is something called grief hallucinations. It is actually quite common for the bereaved to see their lost one. This can even occur for those who are unrelated but still care. I'm sure you've heard the stories of all the Elvis sightings. There was a famous Sufi Mystic named Al Hallaj who was executed by the religious leaders, and after his death, many of his disciples said they had seen him.

So start with that. Now pass on those stories, and with each telling, it gets a little more embellished. Over the course of several decades, a handful of bereavement hallucinations becomes entire crowds of people seeing the dead person with all sorts of miracles added into the mix. And I'm sure you've noticed from the urban legends passed around on the internet, that it is actually not uncommon for people to become fully convinced of these kinds of stories, even though they look absurd at face value.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, believing the Bible is not circular reasoning.

That is not what he said. If you believe the Bible because the Bible says that it is the word of God that is circular reasoning. If one tests the Bible rationally and it passes, then you would have a proper reason to believe it, but it tends to fail those tests.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes it is silly to think a human was dead and then came back to life.
That is probably what made the resurrection of Jesus such a life changing event for the apostles and disciples, even for Thomas who would not believe till he saw and put his fingers in Jesus wounds etc.

Or a game changing myth. The had at least thirty years to come up with myths before any of the Gospels were written. None of them were written by eyewitnesses. Matthew was clearly not written by Matthew. Luke tells us that he was not an eyewitness and it was almost certainly not written by Luke. John was not written by John and Mark was not a witness and probably was not written by Mark. Look how quickly myths about Trump arose and that was in the information age.

 

[F1fan]

Recorded activity by humans is history, but you don't seem to be talking about that.

I had written this:

​

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.​

Is this not history to you?

No, believing the Bible is not circular reasoning.

You wanting to believe this is why circular reasoning is still a problem among believers.

The supernatural is recorded history in the Bible and it is observed quite often over a period of a couple of thousand years.

This is not factual. You believe this due to circular reasoning. Se the negative effects?

The history of the supernatural observations is called "only claims" even when the same events are confirmed by others. So I say that the evidence for the supernatural is rejected until the supernatural is proven to be a fact.

There are no factual examples of any supernatural.

But yes you are right when you say that the supernatural is rejected. However in "scholarly history" the supernatural is to be treated neutrally, as if the truth of it is not proven either way. That does not happen. What happens is that the supernatural is treated as if it is not true and conclusions are drawn from using that assumption. THAT is why the dating and authorship of the gospels for example is circular reasoning.

There's no factual basis for belief in a supernatual. The Bible is not evidence of it. You are trapped as a Christian in needing to assume the Bible is true, and is evidence. Critical thinkers are free from this trap.

I am interested in defending the truth of the gospels against arguments that do not show them to be untrue.

No one has ever demonstrated that the Gospels are truth. You haven't. You have that burden of proof. Until then, what Christians claim is irrelevant.

Many unbelievers seem to want to assume that the gospels are not true until proven to be true. That's fine, and you can do that if you like.

That's how logic and reasoning works.

My adopted beliefs is what I have determined to be true about how things are and which I defend from attacks from those who have made themselves enemies of those beliefs and who want to preach their anti gospel beliefs to the world.

And whoever told you this dogma took advantage of your willingness to believe it. You didn't arrive at a conclusion via evidence, by your own admission.

Your non belief still sounds like the incredulity fallacy.

But it is just critical thinking, which follows logical rules. I'll bet you don't accept Muslim claims, or Hindu claims. See how easy it is to not believe?

God changes people in His own way and all people are different and God deals with each one accordingly. The evil deeds of Christians is not a good advocate for God but thinking that God clicks His fingers and somehow forces people to be good all the time is just a false understanding of the New Testament and of what happens.

This is religious thinking, and none of it is factual.

Not completely true, as I can point to assumptions used by people who like to be known as critical thinkers, and those critical thinkers can't see them.

Who said anything about assumptions? I was referring to dogma that critical thinkers don't have. Assumptions can be useful in hypotheticals, btw.

But it is true that many believers reject things things that you might call facts.

Facts are not a matter of opinion. Your statement here suggests you are one of these folks who will reject an inconvenient fact. That's a negative result of dogma.

I suppose an example might be my rejection of your saying that the Jesus story is a myth and that it is history (or historical fact) that it is a created myth.

See, you reject the fact that the story of Jesus is a myth. There's no evidence that counters this.

 

[Maninthemiddle]

For the same reason I don’t believe the Universe was created in 6 days.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't believe the Jesus of early Christianity was ever a literal, living person.

 

[Brian2]

That is not what he said. If you believe the Bible because the Bible says that it is the word of God that is circular reasoning.

That sounds like you are saying that believing the Bible before you believe the Bible is circular reasoning.
I would say that it would be circular reasoning to point out that the Bible claims to be the word of God and so that means we should believe it.
I would say that it would be circular reasoning to claim that the Bible is not true because you assume that the supernatural is not true until proven true.
It would also be using the logical fallacy of incredulity (I am incredulous about the truth of the Bible because it contains the supernatural) The supernatural has already been assumed to be untrue and so the answer to the question about the truth of the Bible is "not true" from the start, no need to consider anything.

If one tests the Bible rationally and it passes, then you would have a proper reason to believe it, but it tends to fail those tests.

What tests?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That sounds like you are saying that believing the Bible before you believe the Bible is circular reasoning.
I would say that it would be circular reasoning to point out that the Bible claims to be the word of God and so that means we should believe it.
I would say that it would be circular reasoning to claim that the Bible is not true because you assume that the supernatural is not true until proven true.
It would also be using the logical fallacy of incredulity (I am incredulous about the truth of the Bible because it contains the supernatural) The supernatural has already been assumed to be untrue and so the answer to the question about the truth of the Bible is "not true" from the start, no need to consider anything.

If you think that is the case then you need your hearing checked. By the way, when I say that the Bible is "not true" that will only mean that certain claims in it have been shown to be false. Some of it is actually correct. It is as big of an error to say that it is all wrong as it is to say that it is all right. To call it the "word of God" is foolish because at best one is blaspheming God when one does so since it has soooo many problems with it. It fails at all levels somewhere in the book. You appear to be trying to claim that others have made your logical fallacies. Most of the atheists here, me included, have not done so. We just reject the Bible for the same reason that we reject all other "holy books". They have all failed to meet their burden of proof.

What tests?

It fails historically, it fails scientifically, it fails morally. it fails prophetically. That should be enough for now.

 

[Brian2]

Or a game changing myth. The had at least thirty years to come up with myths before any of the Gospels were written. None of them were written by eyewitnesses. Matthew was clearly not written by Matthew. Luke tells us that he was not an eyewitness and it was almost certainly not written by Luke. John was not written by John and Mark was not a witness and probably was not written by Mark. Look how quickly myths about Trump arose and that was in the information age.

I don't know much about Trump myths but did see on TV that he was shot through the head and came out of it with only a graze to his ear.
About the Bible and Gospels, I have noted that people have used many reasons over the last 2000 years to say that the gospels are not true and that in these days the current popular wisdom is that the supernatural is not true until proven true and so can be assumed to be untrue in anyone's experiences or in scriptures or history books and that this assumption will receive applause from scholars, and any conclusions about the gospels and Bible which come from this assumption are true.
This of course is where you get your conclusions about the dating and authorship of the gospels. It is plainly circular reasoning.

 

[Brian2]

I had written this:

​

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.​

Is this not history to you?

It's usually interpretations of history.

You wanting to believe this is why circular reasoning is still a problem among believers.

I'm not as important as that. However what you said highlights the fact that people of different beliefs probably start with different assumptions and don't realise it and make logical fallacies without realising it. And of course Christians do that also.

This is not factual. You believe this due to circular reasoning. Se the negative effects?

It is my belief, and your belief is that it was not the supernatural and that people somewhere along the way lied about it, exaggerated it or however else you want to put it.

There are no factual examples of any supernatural.

That sounds like an assumption, based on your beliefs.

There's no factual basis for belief in a supernatual. The Bible is not evidence of it. You are trapped as a Christian in needing to assume the Bible is true, and is evidence. Critical thinkers are free from this trap.

Scholars seem trapped into rejecting the supernatural even when they are to be neutral about it.
Critical thinkers also reject the supernatural and evidence for the supernatural until the existence of the supernatural is proven.
Any supernatural in the Bible is assumed to have been caused by lies, and this includes prophecies that appear to have come true.
So critical thinkers are trapped into rejecting the truth of scriptures.

No one has ever demonstrated that the Gospels are truth. You haven't. You have that burden of proof. Until then, what Christians claim is irrelevant.

True, Christians have not proven the truth of the gospels imo. It is a matter of faith. In like manner, non believers have not proven that the gospels are not true, it is again a matter of faith.
You might demand proof from believers but that is just a game or proselytizing while of course acting innocent of that.

That's how logic and reasoning works.

That is not how "faith" works, but that is probably a dirty word to you and you like to think that if I cannot prove the gospels that means they are not true. This of course is not logical at all and neglects the fact that you cannot prove your world godless world view but are prepared to live a life as if that world view is true.

And whoever told you this dogma took advantage of your willingness to believe it. You didn't arrive at a conclusion via evidence, by your own admission.

However I did arrive at and stay in it by seeing that attacks against it usually have no basis in fact.

But it is just critical thinking, which follows logical rules. I'll bet you don't accept Muslim claims, or Hindu claims. See how easy it is to not believe?

Yes, with your critical thinking and seeing that as the only way to true beliefs, most things can be not believed.

This is religious thinking, and none of it is factual.

It's just a statement against a false understanding of the Gospel and against using that false understanding to attack the truth of the Gospel.

Who said anything about assumptions? I was referring to dogma that critical thinkers don't have. Assumptions can be useful in hypotheticals, btw.

Critical thinking dogma could be that the supernatural is to be rejected until proven to be true.

Facts are not a matter of opinion. Your statement here suggests you are one of these folks who will reject an inconvenient fact. That's a negative result of dogma.

See, you reject the fact that the story of Jesus is a myth. There's no evidence that counters this.

I believe the story of Jesus is true and you cannot show it is not true. OK.
You believe the story of Jesus is not true and I cannot show it is true.
Sounds like a draw and we are both entitled to our beliefs.

 

[Brian2]

For the same reason I don’t believe the Universe was created in 6 days.

At least you have evidence that the 6 days are not literal.

 

[Brian2]

I don't believe the Jesus of early Christianity was ever a literal, living person.

And your glasses make you look so intelligent. I guess they must be because you are half blind.

 

[Brian2]

If you think that is the case then you need your hearing checked. By the way, when I say that the Bible is "not true" that will only mean that certain claims in it have been shown to be false. Some of it is actually correct. It is as big of an error to say that it is all wrong as it is to say that it is all right. To call it the "word of God" is foolish because at best one is blaspheming God when one does so since it has soooo many problems with it. It fails at all levels somewhere in the book. You appear to be trying to claim that others have made your logical fallacies. Most of the atheists here, me included, have not done so. We just reject the Bible for the same reason that we reject all other "holy books". They have all failed to meet their burden of proof.

You want things proven that cannot be proven and it is not a matter of proving anyway. It is a matter of believe or reject.

It fails historically, it fails scientifically, it fails morally. it fails prophetically. That should be enough for now.

They are claims, opinions, that is all.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Pretty much all of them literally believe it.

They don't.

The thing is .. when somebody is sent for execution, what happens is in the hands of the executioner.
However, G-d is able to do all things.

..and that includes save him from his enemies.
It is indeed possible, that it appeared to be the case, that he died on the cross, but in fact did not.
That would explain why he asked a disciple to feel his wounds .. no?

 

[Maninthemiddle]

At least you have evidence that the 6 days are not literal.

And do you have evidence that the resurrection is literal.
And how to you decide what is literal and what is not

 

[Balthazzar]

Feel free to share your thoughts.

He did come out of his grave. Even Lazarus came out of his grave. He was counted among the dead, just like Lazarus was counted among the dead. He lived through a crucifixion was placed in his catacomb cave to live the rest of his short life in pain, suffocating, starving and of dehydration. He was counted among the dead, but someone removed the stone and like Lazarus, he walked out ... somehow. He was so badly beaten, his own people didn't even recognize him. An angel of the Lord did it, who sat on top the stone they moved afterward, as if daring anyone to challenge him/her. The soldiers guarding the tomb laying dead in front of it. That's what the bible states about it anyway. How could he have died if he walked out? Why didn't his people recognize him if he wasn't beaten that badly? He was certainly expected to die and counted as such, but he lived ... obviously.

 

[Maninthemiddle]

He did come out of his grave. Even Lazarus came out of his grave. He was counted among the dead, just like Lazarus was counted among the dead. He lived through a crucifixion was placed in his catacomb cave to live the rest of his short life in pain, suffocating, starving and of dehydration. He was counted among the dead, but someone removed the stone and like Lazarus, he walked out ... somehow. He was so badly beaten, his own people didn't even recognize him. An angel of the Lord did it, who sat on top the stone they moved afterward, as if daring anyone to challenge him/her. The soldiers guarding the tomb laying dead in front of it. That's what the bible states about it anyway. How could he have died if he walked out? Why didn't his people recognize him if he wasn't beaten that badly? He was certainly expected to die and counted as such, but he lived ... obviously.

Isn't it clear that there are numerous contradictions and scientific inaccuracies in the Bible?
According to the Bible, which is considered to be the word of God, the creator did the following as mentioned in 1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
It's difficult to believe in the resurrection of Jesus when the creator of the universe seems to lack basic knowledge of Astronomy, despite the claim that the Bible represents God's word. It seems evident that this is a fundamental oversight on the part of the Creator, who should possess knowledge of Astronomy.
800 errors in a Book that is Gods word and I am supposed to believe the part about the resurrection

He did come out of his grave. Even Lazarus came out of his grave. He was counted among the dead, just like Lazarus was counted among the dead. He lived through a crucifixion was placed in his catacomb cave to live the rest of his short life in pain, suffocating, starving and of dehydration. He was counted among the dead, but someone removed the stone and like Lazarus, he walked out ... somehow. He was so badly beaten, his own people didn't even recognize him. An angel of the Lord did it, who sat on top the stone they moved afterward, as if daring anyone to challenge him/her. The soldiers guarding the tomb laying dead in front of it. That's what the bible states about it anyway. How could he have died if he walked out? Why didn't his people recognize him if he wasn't beaten that badly? He was certainly expected to die and counted as such, but he lived ... obviously.