Let's cut to the chase: did the resurrection happen?

[Haven]

Recently, there have been a lot of threads on topics related to the resurrection of Jesus (empty tomb, supernaturalism vs. naturalism, historical records, and so on). I think it may be helpful to discuss the big picture: did the resurrection of Jesus happen or not? This thread is the place to discuss it: offer any argument for or against the resurrection. Hopefully this will be a good discussion.

Debate question: Was Jesus resurrected from the dead?

_________
Thread rules:
1) Offer evidence or logical argument. Simply providing Bible quotes isn't sufficient.
2) Faith, while valid on a personal level, isn't evidence for a claim. Provide empirical evidence from history, textual criticism, physics, and so on, not simply statements of faith.
3) Be kind to each other. All of us, regardless of our religious position, are conscious beings deserving of respect and civility.

[Willum]

[Replying to Haven]

So Haven,
You agree that the majority of the Catholic world prays to Deus (Dios, Dieu, Dio, Dyeus etc), or Zeus, and that Deus is the Father of Jesus, but you don't agree that Jesus is really JeZeus, despite the identical pronunciation and if you said Jesus, or EeayyZeus as it it more properly pronounced to anyone near the 0 AD, they would hear Greek: Hail Zeus.

This sounds more like denial than logic.

Why do you not think that the Romans inserted etymological falsehoods along with their take-over of Jerusalem? It seems pretty apparent, that the albeit pervasive derivation of Yeshua to Jesus is faulty.
The "Y" is a different letter back then, the Y as in yes, vs y as in "ee-aa," I've pointed out the the sh sound is very different from the hard s, or z sound. Try it with your own mount, the movements are very different and non-alignable. These differences though masked in English are very different linguistically.
And wasn't Jesus' birth name Joseph? Would Latinization of that be simple Josephus? That is, ironically closer to Jesus than Yeshua, but still quite wrong.

Finally, similar sounds are exactly how things are communicated and changed over time. It is no good saying it isn't because it may disturb your belief. It's like saying librum did not give birth to library.

Respectfully

[DefenderofTruth]

.

Fine, if he doesn't care to look at the evidence that is his own choice.

When one offers Youtube videos as "evidence" their position is no more credible than offering comic books as evidence -- or Sunday school pamphlets and coloring books.

[EDIT: This post has been edited by a moderator at 6:42 to remove the forged "Warning" with it's forged formatting.]
"Warning"

Refer to "evidence"
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=16903

Sources of evidence
We are not composing graduate level theses here. So, any source of evidence is acceptable. This includes any website such as Wikipedia, personal websites (however, not your own website), Youtube videos, podcasts, etc. Of course, all the usual sources of evidence are acceptable: books, articles, journals, magazines, etc.

[Haven]

[Replying to Haven]
So Haven,
You agree that the majority of the Catholic world prays to Deus (Dios, Dieu, Dio, Dyeus etc), or Zeus, and that Deus is the Father of Jesus, but you don't agree that Jesus is really JeZeus, despite the identical pronunciation and if you said Jesus, or EeayyZeus as it it more properly pronounced to anyone near the 0 AD, they would hear Greek: Hail Zeus.

No. I agree that the Latin (and Romance) word for God is related to Zeus, but the god concept that Catholics (and other Christians) worship is Middle Eastern in origin. Chinese Christians call their god Shangdi (上�), a word that is Chinese in origin (and originally referred to the traditional Chinese deity), but they're still worshiping the same deity as Western Christians.

I've already explained the linguistic origin of Jesus (and yes, I'm familiar with basic historical linguistics, the comparative method, and the concept of regular sound correspondences). You're taking an incredibly superficial look at words and saying they're related, but I've explained that determining linguistic relation isn't that simple.

Maybe this link will clarify: https://www.uni-due.de/SHE/SHE_Techniques.htm

This sounds more like denial than logic.

Why would I be in denial? I'm not a Christian; Jesus is nothing to me (except maybe an ancient figure who had some okay teachings). There's no reason for me to say he didn't come from Zeus (in fact, it would be an easier argument for my position if he did). I'm interested in truth, not propaganda.

My post was only intended to refute the pseudolinguistic arguments that you presented.

Why do you not think that the Romans inserted etymological falsehoods along with their take-over of Jerusalem?

They didn't (and why would they? They already had conquered Judea).

It seems pretty apparent, that the albeit pervasive derivation of Yeshua to Jesus is faulty.

And it seems pretty apparent, based on an unscientific surface reading, that the words head and capable are unrelated. A deeper reading, based on sound historical linguistics, shows they come from the same PIE root.

I've already explained how "Jesus" could be derived from "Yeshua" using sound and writing changes from Hebrew to Greek (and then Latin and English): Yeshua --> Greek reduction of "sh" to "s" (Yesua) --> Greek addition of an "s" after Hebrew vowel (Yesuas) --> Greek rendering of the "u" sound as "ou" (Yesous) --> Greek rendering of phoneme /j/ (written "y" in English) with "i" (Iesous) --> Latin reduction of Greek "ou" to "u" (Iesus) --> English replacing Latin initial "i" with "j" (Jesus). This is the view supported by all historical linguists.

Not to mention that, in first century Palestine, the name Jesus (Yeshua) was every bit as common as John or James is today. Were all of the thousands of men named Jesus part of some Roman conspiracy?

The "Y" is a different letter back then, the Y as in yes, vs y as in "ee-aa," I've pointed out the the sh sound is very different from the hard s, or z sound. Try it with your own mount, the movements are very different and non-alignable. These differences though masked in English are very different linguistically.

Sounds can shift much over millennia, especially with words borrowed across languages. This isn't implausible at all.

And wasn't Jesus' birth name Joseph? Would Latinization of that be simple Josephus? That is, ironically closer to Jesus than Yeshua, but still quite wrong.

No, that wasn't his birth name.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 82 by DefenderofTruth]

Yes, Forum Rules allow one to present nearly anything as "evidence"; however, they do not say that anyone has to accept the evidence presented.

Is it difficult to discern that I do not accept Youtube videos, comic books or coloring books (or religion promotional literature) as evidence that a claim, statement or story is true and accurate? I trust that most who read here agree.

I trust that most readers regard such things as scholarly research as much more credible than a Youtube video. But, if the best "evidence" one has is that level perhaps they have to ask others to accept it as being significant.

Does the video being offered so adamantly prove that the resurrection occurred (subject of the thread)?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 83 by Haven]

Sorry, if you are praying to Dios, Deus, Dzyus, Dieu, etc., you are praying to Zeus with a different accent. That's all there is to it.

It's a nifty deception given veracity by the Dark ages, that's all it is.

Just for example, say I started worshiping Bob (Lastname)?

If 100 years later people still worshiped Beb, wouldn't they still be worshiping Bob?

But here, by way of extending the olive branch, I am imagining the possibility that you are correct, exploring the ramifications, understanding and accepting your point of view.

Do me the same favor. Just explore the possibility, as a mental exercise, I know it is a novel one.

Cordially.

[Hamsaka]

.
[Replying to post 70 by DefenderofTruth]

What part of "I do not accept Youtube videos as evidence in debate" is difficult to understand?

Perhaps a person "experiencing" a supernatural entity should consult Youtube videos for verification?

For the record: I do not watch videos (with extremely rare exceptions), television, movies (no exceptions) and do not read fiction and fantasy. My information comes from different sources.

Those who obtain their information from the entertainment realm are welcome to do so, but not to include me in their predilections.

I see know problem exploring any piece of information that can be made known. TV sparked the Civil Rights movement, but you apparently see it has no value.. It also sparked change in communist China.. Internet sites like Wikileal sparked the Arab spring and the Arab revolutions.

Youtube can have just as much value as a documentary book, maybe arguably more value. In fact the video i linked is a brief description of a nonfictional book.

I don't see the problem with evaluating any piece of information. From the original greek and hebrew manuscripts of the Bible to youtube videos, its all just information... But like i said i spelled it out to you in post 61, you can respond to that or you can drop the subject.

It's good to evaluate all the available information. It's even better to evaluate information that disagrees with what you believe, as a gesture toward your commitment to knowing the truth (as much as any of us can). Skeptics examining Christian literature, and vice versa. There's no obligation to do this, of course, in one's personal life, but it is expected of you (the generic) on a debate forum.

Do you agree that there are some sources of information that are more trustworthy than others? Why would some be more trustworthy than others?

Thats what a debate is. "evaluating information that disagrees with what you believe"... right?

That, and debate is a formal contest of arguments. The arguments best supported 'win' (though no one is keeping track of points around here). Arguments that do best are those that present their evidence in air-tight logic. I've had to educate myself about logical fallacies and discern between a 'claim' and 'evidence for a claim'.

It's a different 'language' than that of discussion (which seeks mutual understanding), and a very different language than the way language is used in religious belief. It's a learning experience for everyone, we all could use work on critical thinking skills. For theists, 'claims' and 'evidence for claims' are often the same thing (same scripture or doctrine is used to show as well as 'prove' the claim it is making). For instance, asserting there is power in Christ Crucified is a claim. The evidence would be sound, logical exposition of the established 'truths' that support 'there is power in Christ Crucified'.

Otherwise, 'there is power in Christ Crucified' is meaningless, without explanation using credible (ie, established) supportive 'truths'. The evidence creates the argument. Evidence can be plain ole logic or it can be empirical or a combination of the two. I'm sure someone else can do a better job explaining this.

As far as "some sources of information that are more trustworthy than others? Why would some be more trustworthy than others?" ~ Hamsaka

Because that how life works... right? You aren't going to look for solutions to morality, or how societies are suppose to operate by reading mein kampf, are you? Even though some people will.

I do believe a lot of someone's DID consult Mein Kampf

What I mean by some information being more trustworthy than others is something else I've gotten a lot more discerning about. "Trustworthy" implies little or no bias. So me quoting RationalWiki at you to explain why the Bible is not a reliable source for _____ is me using obviously biased information. Instead, it would behoove me to dig into some biblical scholarship (after satisfying myself this scholar is not biased too far in either direction) for my argument.

the statement doesn't really address any of the issues, I think what you are assuming with that is that all religious literature is equal in merit, i simply disagree with that.

Then we agree because I don't see all religious literature as equal in merit either. It is not rational to toss aside an entire class of anything. I would trust a reknowned biblical scholar who may be a Christian but carefully avoids bias over Ray Comfort holding a banana (YouTube, I'm afraid) in support of his claim for Intelligent Design.

When something is true, determining that is straightforward. The evidence provided should walk a person right through it, even if the evidence is higher math. A person using logic doesn't need to be able to DO the mathematics of light to follow the logical progression from claim to evidence and back again.

I don't care what anyone says to the contrary, the flying spaghetti monster is not comparable in merit to Christ. It was formed, pulled out of thin air, purely to exploit loop holes in Kansas law and is used to mock the idea of Faith. That is nothing like the fundamental beliefs of Christianity, it isn't comparable.

Here's how I believe they are comparable;

Both the FSG (lame, I agree) and Christ are invisible, physically imperceptible supernatural beings claimed to have created Creation.

From the Open Letter to Kansas School Board:

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence.

That may be a bit of an extreme example, at least i would hope you see it as extreme contrast,

Of course the FSG is ridiculous, it is a parody. Leaving off your personal beliefs, both FSG and Christ being invisible, undetectable supernatural beings with extensive written documentation as 'claims' to truth. In a debate, your faith that Christ is a DIFFERENT or REAL invisible, imperceptible (empirically) supernatural being is untenable. What is your evidence that Christ is true and FSG false? That evidence must be another established 'truth', be it empirical or logical/reasonable.

2.3 billion fellow Christian believers is not 'evidence', and when it is used in place of evidence, that is the logical fallacy called 'ad populum'. If lots of people believe it, it must be true. Let's avoid the Flat Earth problem of the Middle Ages, I'm sure you get my point The temporal 'age' of the Christian religion (it's old, so it must be true) is often used fallaciously in debate.

but how is that different then evaluating any system of belief?

If I understand you correctly, it isn't. I'm not sure I understand what you mean, though.

Religious claims are still claims, and in debate they require logical or empirical evidence.

Obviously Christianity is different then Islam. I see it all to much that atheist group these beliefs together, saying "well if you don't believe in one why would you believe in another?". Because they all have different statements about God. They are different, thats why. They aren't the same thing.

So you believe. There are Christians in Ethiopia who call the Christian God "Allah". And not because they'll be persecuted by the Muslims. Yahweh, the original Abrahamic deity, has been appropriated by Christians and Muslims alike. Sure the theology is different! No two leaves are alike, but there's just one trunk.

You get in trouble when you claim (without supportive evidence based on logic or previously established truths) that Christianity is valid while Islam is not. In debate that is. In debate, you are attempting to persuade an audience, too, not just get the other person to cede to your superior argument. A lot of people read here.

I said it before, i don't see how different competing religions that attempt to explain God, are anything different then competing theories in science. Like how life came to be. Wether it is by a step by step natural process with RNA, directed panspermia, or a bolt of lightning jump starting life... These are competing theories of how life started. I don't know why you would take God to be different. You would need to evaluate them separately and come to conclusions based on there individual claims.

You don't see how empirically tested (and verified) scientific theory is different than faith-based, claim-centered explanations of God?

[DefenderofTruth]

.
[Replying to post 82 by DefenderofTruth]

Yes, Forum Rules allow one to present nearly anything as "evidence"; however, they do not say that anyone has to accept the evidence presented.

Is it difficult to discern that I do not accept Youtube videos, comic books or coloring books (or religion promotional literature) as evidence that a claim, statement or story is true and accurate? I trust that most who read here agree.

I trust that most readers regard such things as scholarly research as much more credible than a Youtube video. But, if the best "evidence" one has is that level perhaps they have to ask others to accept it as being significant.

Does the video being offered so adamantly prove that the resurrection occurred (subject of the thread)?

No it was a response to a different a question that you specifically asked for, in which you complained about the "evidence" i presented and never even responded to the content of my reply...

Comic books? coloring books? You know why you say that? Because you have to downplay and discredit a references to youtube, which is accepted in DC&R. Its nothing more the playing games with words.


What is evidence?
"Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

Sources of evidence
We are not composing graduate level theses here. So, any source of evidence is acceptable. This includes any website such as Wikipedia, personal websites (however, not your own website), Youtube videos, podcasts, etc. Of course, all the usual sources of evidence are acceptable: books, articles, journals, magazines, etc.

Multiple sources of evidence
It is best if you can present more than one source for your evidence (or at least be able to present more than one if asked). If there's only one place in the whole world that you can find evidence from, then it will be held suspect. But, if you can find two dissimilar sources that say the same thing, it will carry more weight.

That is from the DC&R. The tragedy would be that if we had to limit ourselves of presenting evidence and information because of snobby attitudes of people who wouldn't even bother looking at it. The tragedy would be that we would rob ourselves the freedom to source information and give no sources whatsoever.

Giving no sources of evidence at all, that would be a bad result... If a person rejects sources on nothing more then the site they came from, and also gives no sources themselves... Thats tragic..

[Danmark]

[Forged "Warning" redacted]

Moderator Final Warning
Forging a warning or impersonating a moderator is an act of dishonesty, that may merit instant banning from the forum.
Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 87 by DefenderofTruth]

If someone has to struggle that hard to have Youtube videos entered into evidence in support of their contentions or position, they must be really short on credible evidence.

Would you (generic term) believers accept Youtube videos as evidence that one of the competing "gods" is the real deal and your favorite is a phony?

[DefenderofTruth]

.
[Replying to post 87 by DefenderofTruth]

If someone has to struggle that hard to have Youtube videos entered into evidence in support of their contentions or position, they must be really short on credible evidence.

Would you (generic term) believers accept Youtube videos as evidence that one of the competing "gods" is the real deal and your favorite is a phony?

You want to present youtube videos? Go for it... I will even watch them and evaluate what they say...

Specifically i remembered a youtube video that addressed the question you were asking... And also i gave you three books to read.. But i could give you direct quotes if you want..

The two pieces i sourced, one came from a (former) nonbeliever and other from the Bible... They collaborate with each other and both answer your question "How do you tell a vision of a devil from a vision of God".