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.

[Clownboat]

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.

How about this? It was just as possible for Jesus to have come back from the dead as it was for Baal, Megart, Adonis, Eshmun, Tammuz, Ra, Dionysus, Ishtar, Persephone, and Bari.

Should we believe those claims as well because a person could try to argue about them being possible? Let's be sure that we are being equal and rational.

Beginning in the 19th century, a number of gods who would fit these motifs were proposed.[3] Male examples include the ancient Near Eastern, Greek, and Norse deities Baal,[7] Melqart,[8] Adonis,[9] Eshmun,[10] Tammuz,[11] Ra the Sun god with its fusion with Osiris/Orion,[12] Jesus, and Dionysus.[13] Female examples include Inanna/Ishtar, Persephone,[14] and Bari.
The methods of death can be diverse, the Norse Baldr mistakenly dies by the arrow of his blind brother, the Aztec Quetzalcoatl sets himself on fire after over-drinking, and the Japanese Izanami dies of a fever.[2][15] Some gods who die are also seen as either returning or bringing about life in some other form, in many cases associated with a vegetation deity related to a staple food.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-death-rebirth_deity

[assisigirl]

TOTN post 259

assisigirl: Now you kinda make credible sense to me. The survival of the Jesus message after his death and the first shoots of an early cult following were accidental and the result of arbitary circumstance. Now which scenario do we go with. When does the resurrection assertion begin. In your story it seems it evolved after weeks whereas if you run with me it evolves later in doctrine.

What is the selective appearance of Jesus about, and how on earth do we move from your account to a Pentecost Sunday, a Holy Spirit, a Speaking in Tongues to a final Ascension.

This all suggests the work of much later 'Doctrine Crunchers' to me TOTN. What do you think. These guys would have Josephus on their shelves while compiling scripture would they not. An empty tomb suggests a stolen body. It never ever suggests a resurrection so how did the early 'body snatchers' fuel the lie. Lots of questions TOTN, need help badly here.

[Danmark]

Goat good question!:assisigirl wrote:

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.

No.
Wikipedia has a section on this and it seems to me to be more objective than other references I've looked at which simply make the very good case that a Christian forgery has been inserted. At any rate, from Wikipedia:

"The Testimonium Flavianum (meaning the testimony of Flavius [Josephus]) is the name given to the passage found in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities in which Josephus describes the condemnation and crucifixion of Jesus at the hands of the Roman authorities.[51][12] The Testimonium is likely the most discussed passage in Josephus and perhaps in all ancient literature.[1]
The earliest secure reference to this passage is found in the writings of the fourth-century Christian apologist and historian Eusebius, who used Josephus' works extensively as a source for his own Historia Ecclesiastica. Writing no later than 324,[52] Eusebius quotes the passage[53] in essentially the same form as that preserved in extant manuscripts. It has therefore been suggested that part or all of the passage may have been Eusebius' own invention, in order to provide an outside Jewish authority for the life of Christ.[54][55] However, it is also possible that others, including the third-century patristic writer Origen also knew of the passage. Although Origen makes no direct reference to the Testimonium, scholars such as Louis Feldman and Zvi Baras have presented arguments that Origen may have seen a copy of the Testimonium and not commented on it for there was no need to complain about its tone.[56][57]
Of the three passages found in Josephus' Antiquities, this passage, if authentic, would offer the most direct support for the crucifixion of Jesus. The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to interpolation.[12][13][14][15][17] James Dunn states that there is "broad consensus" among scholars regarding the nature of an authentic reference to Jesus in the Testimonium and what the passage would look like without the interpolations.[16] Among other things, the authenticity of this passage would help make sense of the later reference in Josephus Antiquities of the Jews Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 where Josephus refers to the stoning of "James the brother of Jesus". A number of scholars argue that the reference to Jesus in this later passage as "the aforementioned Christ" relates to the earlier reference in the Testimonium.[1][2][58]"

[Tired of the Nonsense]

There you go again, using a lot of words just to restate your conclusion (which is also your premise)... it's "obvious."

I can agree with you that the Gospel accounts are clear: three days after Jesus died, the tomb he was (you'd say "supposedly") buried in was empty. But the issue we are debating is whether that means there was never a body in there or if Jesus came back to life and escaped. All you have to say is: it's obvious.

Well, it's not. It may be obvious to you if you are assuming that resurrection is impossible. But that makes your argument circular.

When by all observation a given condition has established itself to be unswervingly consistent over a long period, all of human history when it comes to death, then the resulting conclusion is referred to as the acquisition of knowledge, and is definitely NOT circular reasoning.

All common experience with the dead has established conclusively, which is to say something which is obvious, that the dead cannot do not and will not come back to life. That is the very definition of what dead is. It is of course quite possible to imagine scenarios by which the dead might return to life. Yet although such imaginary scenarios might perform perfectly well in the imagination, it does not correspond to real life experience. For the story of a resurrected corpse to have any probability for being true at all, in contradiction to all common experience, one would rightly need to provide overwhelming and undeniable evidence. Can you provide such evidence? Other than, "Well that's what I HEARD," I mean?

You see, I keep trying to get you to describe exactly what happened in the couple days leading up to Jesus' death and the days that followed. But all I get from you is references to Matthew (which you don't believe) and accounts from the other Gospels (which you might not believe). I want you to explain those four days at the tomb... what you think happened, not what the Bible says. I want to understand your theory. Were there guards? Did the apostles plan to trick everyone? Did the apostles roll the stone to close the tomb the day Jesus died? Or did they leave it open? If they closed it, who opened it? Were people going to visit the tomb in the days following Jesus' death? Or did no one care? Did the women see an angel? I want to know what you think happened so we can accurately evaluate if it is the "obvious" alternative.

The question is not whether I believe that Matthew is a valid account is not the pertinent question here. The pertinent question is whether YOU believe it. In my discussion with you I have cited Gospel as a source of information equal to the other three Gospels. But then none of the Gospels should be considered above suspicion in terms of their accuracy, since all four contain claims which contradict natural law and all common experience. None of the Gospels are necessarily 100% fact or 100% fiction, with no middle ground possible. Why should them be? If you wish to exclude Gospel Matthew as a source of information in this discussion I am willing to entertain that possibility. Until then I will continue to cite from it as I would any of the other three Gospels.

Were there guards at the tomb? Gospel Matthew states that their were. Not that this changes the obvious conclusion that his disciples were responsible for the disappearance of his body. Did the apostles roll the stone to close the tomb? Matthew indicates that Joseph was responsible for closing the tomb when he left. Which made sense. Would you want everyone who chanced on your nice clean new and expensive family tomb to see it as and use it as a conveniently private privy? You wouldn't even want total strangers wandering into your house uninvited and using your toilet, would you? So of course Joseph would keep it blocked off at all times. That's why the rock placed was there to begin with. To keep out the unwanted. Who opened it? Well you have already made the case that the priests had every reason to have wanted to inspect the tomb for the body of Jesus. The earliest they could have accomplished this task, quietly and without running afoul of their own ritual prohibitions, would have been in the dark early hours of Sunday morning AFTER the holy day had passed. The tomb was in fact discovered to be open at first light on Sunday morning, accoring to Gospels Mark, Luke and John. Only Gospel Matthew describes the women witnessing the opening of the tomb by an angel. The other three Gospels are consistent on the point that the tomb was already open at first light when the women arrived. Did people care that the tomb was empty? The mysterious empty tomb seems to have been in intrinsic part of and played a significant role in the story of the risen Jesus among the public. Enough interest to slowly, over the years, gain a foothold in popular belief, if mainly among non-Jews. Rather like the story of Sasquatch. No Sasquatch his ever been captured. No corpse or even partial remains have ever been found. But yet there are true believers. Did the apostles plan to trick everyone? Here is what I recently posted to assisigirl on that subject:

For three years a group of men traveled around with a charismatic leader who attracted crowds to listen to his religious message. This man is unjustly arrested,. put on trial, convicted and executed. His group of close friends and some others who have responded to the man's message, unable to save his life, resolve to take their friend's body home for a proper burial with his family. They quietly leave in the dead of night as soon as the body has been carefully prepared for the trip to avoid any further entanglement with the authorities. While they are gone questions begin to circulate among the public concerning the man's empty grave. A mystery is born. Six weeks later when the group of friends return the mystery has taken root solidly enough for the friends of the dead man to have some success, at least, in attracting enough interest among the public in the telling and re-telling of stories of their unjustly condemned friend's resurrection from the dead. Which only they witnessed of course. And they discover, happily, that they are able to continue to make an acceptable living for some years by traveling about and telling stories of the risen Christ. Not a cunningly conceived plan so much as a happenstance... an opportunity which presented itself . Time passes and the developing maturing story is taken up by converts, true believers. A new religion has been formed. Consider Mormonism and Islam as parallel examples of entirely new religions forming from the stories and claims spread, initially at least, by a very few.

Interestingly, when I argue:
A
B
C
D
E
And these arguments/observations are not contingent upon each other, but they all give independent support to the proposition: X...

And all you do is say:
No, B is wrong...

You've done very little to the argument. If I want, I can concede B and still have the combined strength of A, C, D, and E.

At the beginning of this very post you stated: "There you go again, using a lot of words just to restate your conclusion (which is also your premise)... it's "obvious."

And now you make the statement above. I am content that I have, in full view of all interested parties, stated my argument thoroughly and in some great detail.

I can agree with you that the Gospel accounts are clear: three days after Jesus died, the tomb he was (you'd say "supposedly") buried in was empty. But the issue we are debating is whether that means there was never a body in there or if Jesus came back to life and escaped. All you have to say is: it's obvious.

Here is what I have said repeatly, and I have given you absolutely every opportunity to address this question. The obvious answer to the question of a missing corpse is that it is overwhelmingly more likely to have been the result of actions taken by the living, then of actions taken by the corpse. TRUE OR FALSE?

I am not responsible for the fact that you have steadfastly refused to address this most crucial of questions. The fact that you continue to refuse to address it exposes the weakness of your position as clearly as any spotlight could. You have already lost on the issue of credibility.

Yikes! Like I said, it doesn't even support your conclusion. All it says is: Roman soldiers get punished.

It says very clearly that the penalty for sleeping on guard duty was to be beaten to death. You are claiming that Roman soldiers would have taken bribes and a promise of protection from a group of Jewish priests in exchange for openly bragging of sleeping on guard duty. Yes, I would say that the account I provided by Polybius does in fact have a very direct bearing on your claim.

And American military punishments haven't changed since 1775? Is that what you're claiming? Or are you saying that the military hasn't changed it's procedures since 1775? Or are you simply pointing out that the military was established in 1775 and we still have a military, and some of the crimes are the same, so it's probably mostly the same across the board?

Serious dereliction of duty has always been considered a potential capitol offence in most militaries throughout history. In fact for most of history perpetrators were executed on the spot by their commanders. As needed to established discipline. Without discipline an army is simply a mob of individuals who might choose at any time to disobey orders. And yes, I was myself once in the military. .

Your "evidence" doesn't say anything about punishment for sleeping. Your "evidence" doesn't say anything about rules and procedures for Roman soldiers in Jerusalem around 30AD.

You are desperately grasping at straws and attempting to cover your deteriorating position in a smoke screen, and it is becoming painfully obvious. Read CAREFULLY.!

37 1 "A court-martial composed of all the tribunes at once meets to try him, and if he is found guilty he is punished by the bastinado ( fustuarium). 2 This is inflicted as follows: The tribune takes a cudgel and just touches the condemned man with it, 3 after which all in the camp beat or stone him, in most cases dispatching him in the camp itself. 4 But even those who manage to escape are not saved thereby: impossible! for they are not allowed to return to their homes, and none of the family would dare to receive such a man in his house. So that those who have of course fallen into this misfortune are utterly ruined. 5 The same punishment is inflicted on the optio and on the praefect of the squadron, if they do not give the proper orders at the right time to the patrols and the praefect of the next squadron. 6 Thus, owing to the extreme severity and inevitableness of the penalty, the night watches of the Roman army are most scrupulously kept. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... us/6*.html

Would there be some suspicion in your mind that this might just include sleeping while on watch?

Yeah, that would have made a lot of sense... we're talking about Matthew's account, so you think it makes sense for the guards to run to the priests saying "bright light... angel... rock moved... earthquake... women... tomb is empty," and the priests' best course of action would have been to report them to Roman officials, insist they they die for getting beat by an angel and an earthquake, and then turn around and tell everyone the apostles bribed the guards?

I think it would have been in thei priests best interest to have taken the obvious course of action had the guards been Roman. Insist that Pilate execute them for dereliction of duty and then explain to the Jewish nation that the Roman guards had obviously been bribed by the disciples of Jesus and had been executed for their offence. The disciples of Jesus got control of the body of Jesus so that they could proclaim the risen Jesus, by bribing the Roman soldiers. As testimony to their duplicitous actions the Roman soldiers have been executed. Case closed. Had the guard been composed of Romans that is. The story that the priests came up with, according to Gospel Matthew, that the guards slept through the disciples rolling away the stone and stealing the body is the very definition of weak. Much like your argument.

And you don't think Roman officials would have had something to say about the angel and the earthquake story (which the priests wanted to be a secret)? You don't think the Roman officials would have made their execution public, including their far-fetched story (which was exactly what the priests didn't want)? You don't think the Roman officials would have clarified the issue when the priests started telling everyone the Roman guards took bribes from the apostles (ruining their story)?

For the priests to have openly acknowledged the story of the angels would have been for the priests to have openly acknowledged that they had scourged and crucified one of God's chosen. Whether the angel story in Matthew is true or not, I think we can understand why the priests would not have wished such a story to have become common knowledge. Other than their own immediate conversion to the cause of Christianity of course. Which is clear did not occur. And why it did not occur is a good question? If the priests were aware of and believed the story of the angel opening the tomb, then they would have at that point been made quite aware that they had in fact mistreated and executed one of God's chosen. Who would choose to PURPOSELY AND WILLFULLY oppose God's will? If the story in Gospel Matthew is valid, then the chief priests should have been among the first converts to Christianity. That's not what the rest of the story indicates though, is it!

Or do you think the priests would have told the Roman officials some kind of lie to get the guards killed? "They took money and let the body go!" And you don't think that would have caused an investigation (which is exactly what the priests would not have wanted)? And you don't think the Roman officials would have believed their contingent of guards over priests with motivation to fabricate a story?

Doesn't work, does it! All of which is why it is very obvious that there were no Roman guards involved with the guarding of the tomb.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

assisigirl: Now you kinda make credible sense to me. The survival of the Jesus message after his death and the first shoots of an early cult following were accidental and the result of arbitrary circumstance. Now which scenario do we go with. When does the resurrection assertion begin. In your story it seems it evolved after weeks whereas if you run with me it evolves later in doctrine.

There is little reason to suppose that the story being spread by the disciples beginning on the day of Pentecost was as fully developed, evolved if you prefer, as the story that Paul was telling a quarter of a century later. Nor was the story that Paul was telling as well developed as the stories contained in the Gospels, or other later works. The NT is in fact a record of the early history of the development of Christianity. Nor has Christianity stopped developing to this day. All religions change and evolve over time.

What is the selective appearance of Jesus about, and how on earth do we move from your account to a Pentecost Sunday, a Holy Spirit, a Speaking in Tongues to a final Ascension.

I was raised Pentecostal, so I witnessed my share as a youngster of doughty middle aged ladies flopping on the ground, their legs akimbo, screaming out meaningless blather at revival meetings. Because it IS meaningless blather. The long passage in Mark 19:9-20 , referred to as the "long passage" because it does not appear in the oldest manuscripts of Mark, also proclaims that "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." As a testament to the truth and power of this passage, some southern churches practice snake handling during which they drape numerous poisonous snakes all over their bodies while they dance in religious ecstasy. And they are in fact bitten and sometimes die, all in accordance with God's will, praise the Lord. Deserving Darwin Award winners, others might conclude.

Darwin Awards
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Darwin Awards are a tongue-in-cheek honor, originating in Usenet newsgroup discussions circa 1985. They recognize individuals who have contributed to human evolution by self-selecting themselves out of the gene pool via death or sterilization due to their own (unnecessarily foolish) actions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Awards

If by final Ascension are you referring to the great end of times death wish that is one of the prominent features of Christianity? Would it surprise you to know that I consider this despicable death wish one of the biggest abominations of Christianity? When Christians wonder why atheists are becoming so vocal in their opposition to religion in general and Christianity in particular, they would do well to start by considering the fact that they are indoctrinating their own children with this hideous end of times death wish crapola. Also, Christians spend years programming their children to believe in the existence of all things Satanic, and then are completely shocked when their children take them at their word and shoot up their schools in the name of Satan. Yes, I have issues with religion.

This all suggests the work of much later 'Doctrine Crunchers' to me TOTN. What do you think. These guys would have Josephus on their shelves while compiling scripture would they not. An empty tomb suggests a stolen body. It never ever suggests a resurrection so how did the early 'body snatchers' fuel the lie. Lots of questions TOTN, need help badly here.

What do you suppose the author of Gospel Matthew's intention was when he came up with the story of the guard at the tomb and inserted it into his Gospel? Do you suppose it was to dispel the obvious conclusion that someone living moved the body, and that the disciples of Jesus were the obvious suspects? That the obvious hole in this story has managed to hold up for 2,000 years is a testament to power of a lifetime of indoctrination. But then kids are pliable and inherently eager for parental approval.

[aglassdarkly]

There you go again, using a lot of words just to restate your conclusion (which is also your premise)... it's "obvious."

I can agree with you that the Gospel accounts are clear: three days after Jesus died, the tomb he was (you'd say "supposedly") buried in was empty. But the issue we are debating is whether that means there was never a body in there or if Jesus came back to life and escaped. All you have to say is: it's obvious.

Well, it's not. It may be obvious to you if you are assuming that resurrection is impossible. But that makes your argument circular.

When by all observation a given condition has established itself to be unswervingly consistent over a long period, all of human history when it comes to death, then the resulting conclusion is referred to as the acquisition of knowledge, and is definitely NOT circular reasoning.

Then explain the structure of your argument:

1. Jesus died.
2. It's obvious Jesus didn't come back to life.
Therefore, Jesus didn't come back to life.

Your argument uses its conclusion to argue for the conclusion. That's circular.

All common experience with the dead has established conclusively, which is to say something which is obvious, that the dead cannot do not and will not come back to life.

This argument (it's always been like this, so it will never ever be different) might be practical, but it is not logical. The sun rises every morning, but it does not logically follow to conclude that the sun must rise tomorrow morning.

That is the very definition of what dead is.

Find me a definition of "dead" the includes the stipulation that the dead thing cannot come back to life.

It is of course quite possible to imagine scenarios by which the dead might return to life. Yet although such imaginary scenarios might perform perfectly well in the imagination, it does not correspond to real life experience. For the story of a resurrected corpse to have any probability for being true at all, in contradiction to all common experience, one would rightly need to provide overwhelming and undeniable evidence. Can you provide such evidence? Other than, "Well that's what I HEARD," I mean?

We are finally getting to the core of your position.

Although you began by trying to defend your non-resurrection conspiracy theory using the Gospels and historical information, the truth is that it was all covering up something much more simple: your assumption that resurrection is impossible. You have assumed your conclusion.

So what do you need from me in order to give credibility to my position?... evidence.

Nothing will assuage your argument except some kind of verifiable proof that Jesus rose from the grave 2000 years ago. Have you given me a task that would be possible even if Jesus came back to life? No.

So there you go. Even if the Gospel accounts are correct, you've put yourself into a position where you would NEVER accept them.

You see, I keep trying to get you to describe exactly what happened in the couple days leading up to Jesus' death and the days that followed. But all I get from you is references to Matthew (which you don't believe) and accounts from the other Gospels (which you might not believe). I want you to explain those four days at the tomb... what you think happened, not what the Bible says. I want to understand your theory. Were there guards? Did the apostles plan to trick everyone? Did the apostles roll the stone to close the tomb the day Jesus died? Or did they leave it open? If they closed it, who opened it? Were people going to visit the tomb in the days following Jesus' death? Or did no one care? Did the women see an angel? I want to know what you think happened so we can accurately evaluate if it is the "obvious" alternative.

The question is not whether I believe that Matthew is a valid account is not the pertinent question here. The pertinent question is whether YOU believe it. In my discussion with you I have cited Gospel as a source of information equal to the other three Gospels. But then none of the Gospels should be considered above suspicion in terms of their accuracy, since all four contain claims which contradict natural law and all common experience. None of the Gospels are necessarily 100% fact or 100% fiction, with no middle ground possible. Why should them be? If you wish to exclude Gospel Matthew as a source of information in this discussion I am willing to entertain that possibility. Until then I will continue to cite from it as I would any of the other three Gospels.

I've made it clear that I don't want to know what you think about what Matthew says or what Luke says or which parts of the accounts are probably true. I want you to explain the extent of your conspiracy theory.

Your refusal to do so makes it impossible to evaluate the obviousness of your theory. How can you say your explanation is more obvious than the Gospel accounts when you will not provide your explanation? It's like you're the judge and the prosecutor and the evidence is a secret.

Good luck with that. You claim to be on the side of logic, reason, and critical thinking, but I'm tired of the nonsense.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

When by all observation a given condition has established itself to be unswervingly consistent over a long period, all of human history when it comes to death, then the resulting conclusion is referred to as the acquisition of knowledge, and is definitely NOT circular reasoning.

Then explain the structure of your argument:

1. Jesus died.
2. It's obvious Jesus didn't come back to life.
Therefore, Jesus didn't come back to life.

Your argument uses its conclusion to argue for the conclusion. That's circular.

1. Jerry jumped into the air.
2. Since it's obvious that he could not have reached escape velocity,
therefor Jerry came back down again.

Some things really are obvious. It's kinda the point of the word. Since the possibility the Jerry managed to reach escape velocity and left the Earth is THE LEAST LIKELY POSSIBILITY, then the most obvious possibility is that he came back down again.

1. A grave is empty, the corpse is missing.
2. The most likely possibility is that someone living moved the corpse.
3. The least likely possibility is that the corpse came back to life and left on it's own initiative.

Therefore we should busy ourselves looking for living suspects rather than a reanimated corpse. Unless of course undeniable evidence can be provided to establish that no one living could possibly have moved the corpse, and there exists overwhelming evidence that the corpse did indeed become reanimated. Which is the more obvious, that the living moved the corpse, or that the corpse moved the corpse? I have asked this question of you repeatedly, and you have refused to address it repeatedly. If you have any such overwhelming evidence then lay it out there. That's what I heard is not going to be sufficient I am afraid.

All common experience with the dead has established conclusively, which is to say something which is obvious, that the dead cannot do not and will not come back to life.

This argument (it's always been like this, so it will never ever be different) might be practical, but it is not logical. The sun rises every morning, but it does not logically follow to conclude that the sun must rise tomorrow morning.

It's always been this way, therefore logic dictates that this is the way things are. That's logic. Change is inevitable of course. It does not logically follow that the sun MUST rise tomorrow, only that the sun WILL rise tomorrow. The sun has risen every day according to all human experience. Don't tell me that the sun failed to rise one day and then offer no evidence to support such a blatantly preposterous claim. That's what I heard is not going to be sufficient.

Find me a definition of "dead" the includes the stipulation that the dead thing cannot come back to life.

Isaiah 26:
[14] They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise: therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish.

Not a definition so much as...THE WORD OF GOD!

We are finally getting to the core of your position.

Although you began by trying to defend your non-resurrection conspiracy theory using the Gospels and historical information, the truth is that it was all covering up something much more simple: your assumption that resurrection is impossible. You have assumed your conclusion.

So what do you need from me in order to give credibility to my position?... evidence.

Nothing will assuage your argument except some kind of verifiable proof that Jesus rose from the grave 2000 years ago. Have you given me a task that would be possible even if Jesus came back to life? No.

So there you go. Even if the Gospel accounts are correct, you've put yourself into a position where you would NEVER accept them.

The fact that death is the end of life is one of those inescapable conclusions that it is traditionally considered as inevitable as taxes. It's just THAT unavoidable! We have LOTS of experience with death. All common experience, medical experience and experimental experience has shown as conclusively as it is possible for a mortal being to know, that death, once total, IS FINAL. But if you have real evidence which will serve to overturn all common experience, medical experience and experimental experience then please provide it. So far you have been all show and no go. That's what I heard is not going to be sufficient.

I've made it clear that I don't want to know what you think about what Matthew says or what Luke says or which parts of the accounts are probably true. I want you to explain the extent of your conspiracy theory.

I already addressed that. Too many words again for ya? Well, here they are one more time. You asked, so try to deal with them.

For three years a group of men traveled around with a charismatic leader who was quite successful at attracting crowds to listen to his religious message. This man was eventually unjustly arrested, put on trial, convicted and executed. His group of close friends and some others who responded to the man's message, unable to save his life, resolve to take their friend's body home for a proper burial with his family. They quietly leave in the dead of night as soon as the body has been carefully prepared for the trip to avoid any further entanglement with the authorities that had persecuted the dead man... leaving the dead man's grave empty. While they are gone questions begin to circulate among the public concerning the man's empty grave. A mystery is born. Six weeks later when the group of friends return the mystery has taken root solidly enough for the friends of the dead man to have some success, at least, in attracting enough interest among the public in the telling and re-telling of stories of their righteous and unjustly condemned friend's resurrection from the dead. Which only they witnessed of course. And they discover, happily, that they are able to continue to make an acceptable living for some years by traveling about and telling stories of the risen Christ. Not a cunningly conceived plan so much as a happenstance... an opportunity which presented itself . Time passes and the developing maturing story is taken up by converts, true believers. A new religion has been formed. Consider Mormonism and Islam as parallel examples of entirely new religions forming from the stories and claims spread, initially at least, by a very few.

Your refusal to do so makes it impossible to evaluate the obviousness of your theory. How can you say your explanation is more obvious than the Gospel accounts when you will not provide your explanation? It's like you're the judge and the prosecutor and the evidence is a secret.

MY REFUSAL?? Do you really think that anyone who has been following this discussion is going to have reached the conclusion that I have been dodging ANYTHING from you, when in fact you have been squawking that I have been provided TOO MUCH information? And far from dodging YOU, you have repeatedly dodged the questions I have asked of you, and have done so from the beginning of the discussion. Not that I haven't brought up and rubbed that very problem in your face in almost everyone of my postings to you. Including this one. But maybe no one's noticed.

[Danmark]

TOTN post 259

assisigirl: Now you kinda make credible sense to me. The survival of the Jesus message after his death and the first shoots of an early cult following were accidental and the result of arbitary circumstance. Now which scenario do we go with. When does the resurrection assertion begin. In your story it seems it evolved after weeks whereas if you run with me it evolves later in doctrine.

What is the selective appearance of Jesus about, and how on earth do we move from your account to a Pentecost Sunday, a Holy Spirit, a Speaking in Tongues to a final Ascension.

This all suggests the work of much later 'Doctrine Crunchers' to me TOTN. What do you think. These guys would have Josephus on their shelves while compiling scripture would they not. An empty tomb suggests a stolen body. It never ever suggests a resurrection so how did the early 'body snatchers' fuel the lie. Lots of questions TOTN, need help badly here.

I'm having trouble understanding your point here. I guess I'm not sure which portions, if any, are intended as irony.

If you are suggesting the NT accounts of Jesus are the result of evolving and conflicting ideas and doctrine, I agree. It's rather obvious in fact. Occasionally, such as with forged additions to Josephus, the fraud is obvious and intentional. There are many other more subtle changes that developed when each faction was arguing its position and they plugged in 'facts' to support their views. Hence the conflicts in gospel accounts.

We see the same thing with Islam, with the same result: Many different factions today, some actually at physical war with each other. We even see it in the history of Mormonism, which is odd, since one would thing that since it was invented out of whole cloth in part to put an end to dispute within Christendom.

And what's the result? We have various faiths and their sub groups that are very good at convincing those within their groups that their group is correct and the others wrong. And we end up with demographics like:

21 countries where Christians comprise between 100% and 90% of the population.

22 countries where Islam is the belief of between 100% and 94% of the population. [guest foreign workers are excluded]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... opulations

[Mithrae]

We can guess that Mark might plausibly have been written by Peter's interpretor, though not himself a witness of the alleged events, and that John might plausibly have been written by Jesus' favourite disciple. But we can't even be sure about those points, and we don't know what kind of people Mark and John were - though we do know that their stories contradict each other on several key points (number of women, number of angels, how soon they told the disciples...).

In order to reasonably believe in the resurrection of Jesus on the basis of that evidence we would need to suppose that the event was weird, but not all that amazing after all.

A Christian apologist can try to stack the odds in their favour a bit more, by arguing that Jesus was a remarkable case because his mission and death were prophecied beforehand (Daniel 9, Isaiah 53 etc) so we should expect remarkable things of him; and by suggesting that the conversion of Jesus' brother James, and the martyrdoms of Peter, and of John's brother James, and of Jesus' brother James himself all give extra credibility to their testimony. It is possible to see how someone for whom that event is considered a centrepiece of their faith could persuade themselves that it is reasonable to believe. Maybe it's not completely unreasonable.

But the evidence is surely far too weak to lead even the most open-minded non-believers to anything more than vague speculation (one way or the other).

I don't expect any atheist to simply renounce his personal opinions or belief on a subject based on nothing except the fact that I feel that I have shown that there is a possibility that it could be true. I'm really not trying to convert anyone to this cause. I personally don't believe that it happened, so it definitely would be pretty ridiculous to expect you to.

My point is simply this. Every great idea in the past was greatly ridiculed by the vast majority of people before it gained any acceptance and was eventually accepted by the general public as fact. Look at everything from the radio, to the automobile, to gravity, the telephone, light bulb, airplane, evolution, and even the personal computer that we are typing on now. The science and knowledge of how the world works at the creation of each of these ideas believed such things to be impossible and most people laughed at the the originators of these ideas, probably saying that these things were "unlikely at best and most likely downright stupid." To them and the world they lived in the idea of people flying through the air or communicating instantaneously over vast distances was the stuff made of,"fairy farts and pixie dust." If these great inventors had not chosen to believe in the "highly unlikely" then we wouldn't have these wonderful inventions and the great knowledge that comes with it. The truth is that a great many things came out of "crackpot ideas" that are now just accepted as obvious truth or fact. If anyone from those past eras were transported instantaneously into our time, they would probably have a heart attack and die just from the shock of what is suddenly "possible", even though it was always reality and we just didn't know it yet.

So, if I can show a thing to at the very least be possible, even if highly unlikely, then I feel like history has already proven that we have no reason to ridicule someone for choosing to believe it and that maybe there might be future great benefit. . . . .

Ridicule? No. I think you and I more or less agree with each other on that. Like I said, maybe it's not completely unreasonable. I'm a fan of Star Trek (Next Generation) and enjoy the episodes where they get mixed up with primitive cultures and inadvertently spawn tales of gods or miracles. If someone can remain persuaded of an event as unlikely as a resurrection (after 30 hours dead during spring in Jerusalem) on the basis of such weak evidence as we have regarding Jesus - or simply as an article of faith - that's their right, and its not impossible that they might even be right.

But as others have pointed out it rarely stops there, does it? One day the resurrection of Jesus is merely an article of faith, and the next there's intolerance towards Jews as Christ-killers and towards Muslims for not believing he really died. By next Friday we're lobbying Washington to support Israeli atrocities in the hopes of nuclear war in the Middle East so that Jesus can finally come back like he promised he would. Hurray!

So however tolerant and imaginative we'd like to be, it's important to keep in perspective that by far the most reasonable conclusion is that Jesus did not rise from the dead. Those who believe that he did do so purely as an article of faith - or if they'd like that belief to be considered a point of reason, fact or logic, they're gonna have to provide something better than my feeble summary above... or Select This's rambling sermons... or Aglassdarkly's persistent refusal to even acknowledge that affirming such an unlikely event incurs a rather high burden of proof (let alone meeting that burden).

----------------

Of the three passages found in Josephus' Antiquities, this passage, if authentic, would offer the most direct support for the crucifixion of Jesus. The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to interpolation.[12][13][14][15][17] James Dunn states that there is "broad consensus" among scholars regarding the nature of an authentic reference to Jesus in the Testimonium and what the passage would look like without the interpolations.[16]

A while back Historia made a thread about Josephus on Jesus and James, and despite his best efforts I ended up leaning more towards complete forgery of the TF than partial authenticity. But I don't much know what I'm talking about there

[Danmark]

. . . .
A while back Historia made a thread about Josephus on Jesus and James, and despite his best efforts I ended up leaning more towards complete forgery of the TF than partial authenticity. But I don't much know what I'm talking about there

I get THAT. I looked into it once in detail; looking at competing sources and 'proofs.' At the time I was satisfied that at least the crucial passage Christians look to was clearly a forgery. But I don't want to revisit it. Too much work. So I'm with you in that I don't know what I'm talking about and will go with wikipedia. I'll have to look at Historia's work. She has a scholarly approach I appreciate, but am too lazy to emulate.

All I remember is that the crucial passage was very, very unlike what a historian of Josephesus' background would have been likely to write.