Real debate of the evidence for resurrection

[Zzyzx]

.
From a current thread:

Testimonials are worth nothing in debate.

Which is why there is so little real debate in any of these forums...opinions abide.

Let's really debate the presence or absence of verifiable evidence that Jesus died and came back to life -- excluding testimonials and opinions.

[benchwarmer]

The best evidence against a resurrection is it is simply impossible.

Not all the power in the universe can resurrect a body three days dead.
There is no mechanism, no power, no concept that allows it to be possible, with the exception of the puerile "but God can do anything."

There are many things God can not do, write a reasonable creation story, for one.
Resurrection is just a demonstrable scientific based one.

It is probably just a metaphor, like the snake and apple, turning to salt, and so on.

The only 'possible' way would be Star Trek like technology where individual atoms can be used to 'build' a human. i.e. God would have to have an exact placement of every single atom in Jesus body before death and then grab all those atoms and place them back exactly where they were 3 days later. If God can do anything, then this would have to be the mechanism otherwise it would be a different Jesus that was brought back to life.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 11 by benchwarmer]

Good effort but, the uncertainty principle makes this kind of molecular rearrangement impossible.
As are all other methods.

[The Tanager]

Let's really debate the presence or absence of verifiable evidence that Jesus died and came back to life -- excluding testimonials and opinions.

Do you mean this debate cannot include a historical investigation as part of it? Historians look at testimonials and opinions all the time, they don't exclude them full stop.

[Zzyzx]

.

Let's really debate the presence or absence of verifiable evidence that Jesus died and came back to life -- excluding testimonials and opinions.

Do you mean this debate cannot include a historical investigation as part of it? Historians look at testimonials and opinions all the time, they don't exclude them full stop.

For purposes of this thread I excluded testimonials and opinions deliberately to learn what, if any, OTHER evidence exists -- and what, if anything, of the claimed events can be verified to have actually occurred.

In study of history and elsewhere this is known a 'convergence of evidence'. If, for instance, a story is told that someone flew by flapping his arms (which seems as unlikely as back to life stories), it is reasonable to ask for independent / disconnected verification. We would be well advised to look beyond some of his buddies saying that he did it.

In the case of the claimed 'resurrection' the ONLY prof offered seems to be testimonials of his buddies (associates). Was the event reported widely by disconnected sources? Are there public records? Did ANYONE other than religion promoters record the miraculous event?

If the answer to these questions is NO, the resurrection tale is as credible as the flying by flapping arms tale.

[JehovahsWitness]

Was the event reported widely by disconnected sources? Are there public records? .

Arent "disconnected sources" and "public records" still testimony?

For purposes of this thread I excluded testimonials and opinions deliberately ...

JW

[Zzyzx]

.

Arent "disconnected sources" and "public records" still testimony?

Only if you want to play on words.

"Joe said so" is NOT equivalent to a court document in my world.

[JehovahsWitness]

.

Arent "disconnected sources" and "public records" still testimony?

Only if you want to play on words.

Or if we know what a dictionary is.

If you would like to explain the terms of debate further for clarity feel free. It seems to me you are not in fact excluding "testimony" but wish to classify which opinion and testimony you wish to accept. A testimony should stand or fall on the quality of its content and the dependibility of its narrator not on who that person does or does not know.

Bias much?


JW








JW

[YahWhat]

The only evidence for the resurrection are the claimed "post-mortem appearances." There would be no other way to confirm that an actual resurrection had taken place. So the claim solely relies on if these people really saw Jesus alive again.

Well, since Paul uses a "vision" (Gal. 1:12-16, Acts 26:19) as a "resurrection appearance" (1 Cor 15:8) then it necessarily follows that claims of "visions" (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) were accepted as evidence of Jesus "appearing." This calls into question the veracity of the "appearances." Based on the earliest evidence in Paul's letters, claiming Jesus "appeared" could be nothing more than feeling like you communicated with him from heaven in a vision or a dream!

It's only later, after the gospels are written that we see the appearances grow more physical/corporeal but scholars have long recognized that the gospels don't actually go back to eyewitnesses. Since Paul is the only verified firsthand source by someone who claimed to "see" Jesus in the first person, and the "appearance" to him was a vision, (not a physical encounter with a revived corpse) which he does not distinguish from the "appearances" to the others in 1 Cor 15:5-8, then the earliest evidence suggests these were originally subjective spiritual experiences. Thus, the resurrection argument fails to meet the burden of proof - "they really saw Jesus alive again."

[SallyF]

There we are …

Not a SQUEAK outside the posthumous propaganda of the Leader.

And people just believing the propaganda.

It's how propaganda works.

And in the case of the Jesus character, the propaganda has worked well.

[The Tanager]

For purposes of this thread I excluded testimonials and opinions deliberately to learn what, if any, OTHER evidence exists -- and what, if anything, of the claimed events can be verified to have actually occurred.

Why should personal testimony be excluded from a proper historical investigation? What kinds of evidence are you looking for? Scientific?

In study of history and elsewhere this is known a 'convergence of evidence'. If, for instance, a story is told that someone flew by flapping his arms (which seems as unlikely as back to life stories), it is reasonable to ask for independent / disconnected verification. We would be well advised to look beyond some of his buddies saying that he did it.

In the case of the claimed 'resurrection' the ONLY prof offered seems to be testimonials of his buddies (associates). Was the event reported widely by disconnected sources? Are there public records? Did ANYONE other than religion promoters record the miraculous event?

We do have multiple and independent attestation. But it seems strange to me to expect a non-believer to take an interest in giving much written attention (or preserving writings that give attention) to this unless it begins to "adversely" affect them in some way. If their investigation resulted in them believing Jesus rose from the dead, then you'd immediately discount their account because now they are a believer.

Are their public records we have from that time period that would necessarily have to include any of these events within them?

I agree that "Person X said Y happened" is not enough to make the claim historically credible. The case for the historical resurrection goes beyond it, but a good historical investigation will also include people's testimonies. It will attempt to sift through the testimony to see what holds up and what doesn't. Proper history is not all-or-nothing with the sources (which are always biased to some degree by those writing them).