Can the Resurrection of Jesus be Defended

[Tired of the Nonsense]

There are no (Christians present) in actual point of fact. None that will support the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus as a point of "logic, reason and critical thinking." Unless there happens to be a Christian newbe present that I am unaware of who wishes to tackle the job. None of the Christian regulars here will defend the story of the resurrection beyond a "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it," defense.

Not so. None is all. I would defend it gladly. Logic and reason reveals what is most evident and what the Bible reveals is absolutely most evident. Start the thread up if you dare. Bring your best arguments.

[assisigirl]

Danmark post 236

Thank you Danmark for your compliments. Does this cover your enquiries?

Antiquities 18: Chapter 3
Josephus mentions the crucifixion of Jesus in passing. The passage is judged authentic by most scholars once the obvious Christian additions (marked here in brackets and italics) are removed:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, [if it be lawful to call him a man;] for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher [of such men as receive the truth with pleasure,] He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. [He was the Christ.] And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; [for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.] And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

[neptune1bond]

I agree that the dream of flight is as old as the first humans who looked at birds and were enthralled with their ability to soar. I just don't understand what this has to do with the acceptance of fantasy.

I never said anything about anyone accepting fantasy. This whole time I've been talking about conceding possibility. I have shown in my previous posts that the resurrection of Jesus was, at the very least, in the realm of scientific possibility. If any person on this forum can accept it as possible, then calling it fantasy, fairy farts, pixie dust, magic, "zombie-Jesus", or anything of the sort is illogical and unreasonable at best.

My point, as I've stated before, is still that if something is in the realm of possibility (even if you personally feel that it is unlikely) then it is unreasonable to ridicule a person for believing in something that is possible and also, given the history of certain great people to accomplish those things deemed "impossible" by first believing in the "unlikely" as we've already discussed, it is also unreasonable to expect a person to give up a belief in a possible truth, even if unlikely. Especially since people believing in the unlikely is what scientific and societal progress and discovery is based almost entirely upon. My point is about tolerance of others, not your acceptance of their beliefs.

[Iam]

I agree that the dream of flight is as old as the first humans who looked at birds and were enthralled with their ability to soar. I just don't understand what this has to do with the acceptance of fantasy.

I never said anything about anyone accepting fantasy. This whole time I've been talking about conceding possibility. I have shown in my previous posts that the resurrection of Jesus was, at the very least, in the realm of scientific possibility. If any person on this forum can accept it as possible, then calling it fantasy, fairy farts, pixie dust, magic, "zombie-Jesus", or anything of the sort is illogical and unreasonable at best.

My point, as I've stated before, is still that if something is in the realm of possibility (even if you personally feel that it is unlikely) then it is unreasonable to ridicule a person for believing in something that is possible and also, given the history of certain great people to accomplish those things deemed "impossible" by first believing in the "unlikely" as we've already discussed, it is also unreasonable to expect a person to give up a belief in a possible truth, even if unlikely. Especially since people believing in the unlikely is what scientific and societal progress and discovery is based almost entirely upon. My point is about tolerance of others, not your acceptance of their beliefs.

I think that tolerance of others is a hallmark of the non theist, whereas tolerance of nonsensical beliefs portrayed as factual is the antitheses of the non theist. Why do you believe that the non acceptance of your beliefs is a lack of tolerance of you? Are you your beliefs YOU? My beliefs and unbeliefs are a part of me, but they do not constitute ME.

[Nickman]

I never said anything about anyone accepting fantasy. This whole time I've been talking about conceding possibility. I have shown in my previous posts that the resurrection of Jesus was, at the very least, in the realm of scientific possibility. If any person on this forum can accept it as possible, then calling it fantasy, fairy farts, pixie dust, magic, "zombie-Jesus", or anything of the sort is illogical and unreasonable at best.

No you have not shown it is possible. You have shown that humans can revive animals while keeping them on life support. This is quite far from bringing someone back to life after 30 hours of death, with no life support, and in an evironment ripe for decomposition.

[Goat]

Danmark post 236

Thank you Danmark for your compliments. Does this cover your enquiries?

Antiquities 18: Chapter 3
Josephus mentions the crucifixion of Jesus in passing. The passage is judged authentic by most scholars once the obvious Christian additions (marked here in brackets and italics) are removed:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, [if it be lawful to call him a man;] for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher [of such men as receive the truth with pleasure,] He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. [He was the Christ.] And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; [for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.] And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

It., in more modern times, have become to be considered 'partially authentic', in other words, it has been tampered with. The people who say that took out the very christian centric phrases to make it sound more authentic to Josephus.

Now, since it is nearly universally acknowledged to be tampered with, what evidence is there that it actually existed before it was quoted by Eurisibus in the 4th century?

[neptune1bond]

I think that tolerance of others is a hallmark of the non theist, whereas tolerance of nonsensical beliefs portrayed as factual is the antitheses of the non theist. Why do you believe that the non acceptance of your beliefs is a lack of tolerance of you? Are you your beliefs YOU? My beliefs and unbeliefs are a part of me, but they do not constitute ME.

It's good that you believe in the moral soundness of the group with which you associate. I would expect nothing less from most people. But to place some label on any overwhelmingly large group of people, even with/without religion, is the hallmark of a stereotype. Stereotypes may, on some small level, have some truth in some circumstances, but you can rarely split any large group of people into categories with any success. To say that tolerance of others is the hallmark of any group of people or not the quality of any other group of people does not play out in reality.

The actual truth is that most people are tolerant of some things and not tolerant of others, whether theist or non-theist. Also, there are incredibly tolerant theists and extremely intolerant atheists all over the place and vice versa.

As far as anyone's beliefs being "them", or who they are as a person, you could say that about a lot of things. If I say that all jocks are big and stupid, then I'm still being incredibly intolerant of that group of people. Is being a jock who they are as a person? no. Not being a jock is just as much a possibility for them, but that doesn't make it any less intolerant for me to make such a comment. How about if I say that all feminists hate all men and suck as human beings, being a feminist is something you choose to take part in, but my comment would be no less intolerant of that group of people. Besides, I've already told you that I don't believe in Christ's resurrection, but I do believe in being tolerant or even loving to those who do. So I definitely don't believe that Christ's resurrection is me in any way.

[neptune1bond]

No you have not shown it is possible. You have shown that humans can revive animals while keeping them on life support. This is quite far from bringing someone back to life after 30 hours of death, with no life support, and in an evironment ripe for decomposition.

I'm starting to not know how to take your constant argument that reviving a clinically dead organism for two hours is possible, but reviving something after any period of time longer than exactly two hours is somehow utterly impossible. I feel like you are nitpicking over minor details in order to not have to agree with me on any level.

O.k. let me put it this way. I have shown that resurrecting a clinically dead creature is scientifically possible. I have shown that cells, even though removed from the body, can be kept alive and sustained indefinitely, without decomposition. Instead of just asking me,"prove more, prove more, prove more" why don't you actually tell me why, after the scientific evidence I've shown, 121 minutes or even 30 hours is totally and utterly impossible? What evidence or logic do you propose that should lead me to believe (again, after what I have shown you) that such a thing cannot and would not ever happen and is, in fact, so incredibly impossible that the thought of it's possibility in reality should be abandoned immediately and the scientists in the dog experiment should abandon their studies right now because 121 minutes just cannot and will not be done?

[Iam]

I think that tolerance of others is a hallmark of the non theist, whereas tolerance of nonsensical beliefs portrayed as factual is the antitheses of the non theist. Why do you believe that the non acceptance of your beliefs is a lack of tolerance of you? Are you your beliefs YOU? My beliefs and unbeliefs are a part of me, but they do not constitute ME.

It's good that you believe in the moral soundness of the group with which you associate. I would expect nothing less from most people. But to place some label on any overwhelmingly large group of people, even with/without religion, is the hallmark of a stereotype. Stereotypes may, on some small level, have some truth in some circumstances, but you can rarely split any large group of people into categories with any success. To say that tolerance of others is the hallmark of any group of people or not the quality of any other group of people does not play out in reality.

The actual truth is that most people are tolerant of some things and not tolerant of others, whether theist or non-theist. Also, there are incredibly tolerant theists and extremely intolerant atheists all over the place and vice versa.

As far as anyone's beliefs being "them", or who they are as a person, you could say that about a lot of things. If I say that all jocks are big and stupid, then I'm still being incredibly intolerant of that group of people. Is being a jock who they are as a person, no. Not being a jock is just as much a possibility for them, but that doesn't make it any less intolerant for me to make such a comment. How about if I say that all feminists hate all men and suck as human beings, being a feminist is something you choose to take part in, but my comment would be no less intolerant of that group of people. Besides, I've already told you that I don't believe in Christ's resurrection, but I do believe in being tolerant or even loving to those who do. So I definitely don't believe that Christ's resurrection is me in any way.

Firstly, which group do you claim I associate with? I would be fascinated to know.
It might also have escaped your attention but this post most definitely made claim that Danmark was intolerant of people and not their beliefs.

I never said anything about anyone accepting fantasy. This whole time I've been talking about conceding possibility. I have shown in my previous posts that the resurrection of Jesus was, at the very least, in the realm of scientific possibility. If any person on this forum can accept it as possible, then calling it fantasy, fairy farts, pixie dust, magic, "zombie-Jesus", or anything of the sort is illogical and unreasonable at best.

My point, as I've stated before, is still that if something is in the realm of possibility (even if you personally feel that it is unlikely) then it is unreasonable to ridicule a person for believing in something that is possible and also, given the history of certain great people to accomplish those things deemed "impossible" by first believing in the "unlikely" as we've already discussed, it is also unreasonable to expect a person to give up a belief in a possible truth, even if unlikely. Especially since people believing in the unlikely is what scientific and societal progress and discovery is based almost entirely upon. My point is about tolerance of others, not your acceptance of their beliefs.

Do you see your last sentence, I didn't quotemine I left it in tact. Speaking of tolerance?

[Nickman]

No you have not shown it is possible. You have shown that humans can revive animals while keeping them on life support. This is quite far from bringing someone back to life after 30 hours of death, with no life support, and in an evironment ripe for decomposition.

I'm starting to not know how to take your constant argument that reviving a clinically dead organism for two hours is possible, but reviving something after any period of time longer than exactly two hours is somehow utterly impossible. I feel like you are nitpicking over minor details in order to not have to agree with me on any level.

O.k. let me put it this way. I have shown that resurrecting a clinically dead creature is scientifically possible. I have shown that cells, even though removed from the body, can be kept alive and sustained indefinitely, without decomposition. Instead of just asking me,"prove more, prove more, prove more" why don't you actually tell me why, after the scientific evidence I've shown, 121 minutes or even 30 hours is totally and utterly impossible? What evidence or logic do you propose that should lead me to believe (again, after what I have shown you) that such a thing cannot and would not ever happen and is, in fact, so incredibly impossible that the thought of it's possibility in reality should be abandoned immediately and the scientists in the dog experiment should abandon their studies right now because 121 minutes just cannot and will not be done?

The problem here is that you have these dogs being revived in a controlled environment. You have cells being kept alive in a controlled environment. This environment is naturally controlled by humans. You are supposing a possibility that the same can happen without any of the equipment or tools that humans use. You even invented an invisible catheter which you may mean an IV. Im not asking you to prove anything. Im asking for you to realize that you see that you are jumping from natural to supernatural without any merit to do so.

[Nickman]

No you have not shown it is possible. You have shown that humans can revive animals while keeping them on life support. This is quite far from bringing someone back to life after 30 hours of death, with no life support, and in an evironment ripe for decomposition.

I'm starting to not know how to take your constant argument that reviving a clinically dead organism for two hours is possible, but reviving something after any period of time longer than exactly two hours is somehow utterly impossible. I feel like you are nitpicking over minor details in order to not have to agree with me on any level.

O.k. let me put it this way. I have shown that resurrecting a clinically dead creature is scientifically possible. I have shown that cells, even though removed from the body, can be kept alive and sustained indefinitely, without decomposition. Instead of just asking me,"prove more, prove more, prove more" why don't you actually tell me why, after the scientific evidence I've shown, 121 minutes or even 30 hours is totally and utterly impossible? What evidence or logic do you propose that should lead me to believe (again, after what I have shown you) that such a thing cannot and would not ever happen and is, in fact, so incredibly impossible that the thought of it's possibility in reality should be abandoned immediately and the scientists in the dog experiment should abandon their studies right now because 121 minutes just cannot and will not be done?

The problem here is that you have these dogs being revived in a controlled environment. You have cells being kept alive in a controlled environment. This environment is naturally controlled by humans. You are supposing a possibility that the same can happen without any of the equipment or tools that humans use. You even invented an invisible catheter which you may mean an IV. Im not asking you to prove anything. Im asking for you to realize that you see that you are jumping from natural to supernatural without any merit to do so.