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.

[Divine Insight]

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."

That's simply not true. It's possible that the universe is indeed a simulation of some sort. If that's the case, then anything is indeed possible. Ask anyone who knows anything about writing computer simulations. It's extremely easy to include things within the simulation that totally ignores all the rules that the bulk of the simulation is being drive by.

The argument that this would be impossible is an extremely poor argument against theology.

However, the argument that any God who purposefully chose to incorporate such a dastardly plan in his creation is an excellent argument against this theology.

Any God who would do such a nasty thing would either need to be seriously mentally disturbed himself, or he would need to be extremely limited in what he can do. Neither of those two excuses will help Christian theology.

So it doesn't matter whether a God could actually pull such a sinister stunt. The real question is why any truly omnipotent benevolent loving God would stoop to such a disgusting tactic?

People who try to claim that this would be a "Good Thing" aren't thinking clearly. It can never be said to be a good tactic. Only an inept God who couldn't do any better would do such a disgusting thing. And I'm sure they don't want to argue that their God is inept and disgusting. But that's exactly what they need to argue whether they like it or not.

So the question of whether or not a creator God could do it is a meaningless questions. Of course a creator God could do this. But it would take an extremely desperate or malevolent God to actually choose to do it.

So it can't be made to work theologically even if we allow that it's possible.

[Divine Insight]

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

I know this question was addressed to Z, but I'd like to give my answer to this question.

For me, it's not a question of scientific evidence. We can never have scientific evidence that Jesus even died, much less that he rose from the dead.

Not only this, but as far as I can see, this theology doesn't even remotely support this scenario.

If Jesus' death was required for human salvation then it was far too little too late. This should have been offered to Adam and Eve if this was God's original plan. So the theology is dead in the water right there since Jesus would have been thousands of years too late.

The whole idea of a God having to resort to such a desperate tactic so late in the game requires that this God was both inept, and confused. Why did he bother drowning out sinners during the great flood, when those sinners could have been offered a chance to choose Jesus instead?

The Christian story of Jesus simply isn't compatible with the religion from which it arose.

Not to mention the fact that Jesus was nothing at all like Yahweh. Even teaching people contradictory things like:

1. We no longer need to stone sinners to death as Yahweh had commanded us to do.

And

2. Not one jot or one tittle shall pass from law.

Well duh, he already changed the law when he proclaimed that we no longer need to stone adulterers to death.

The stories of Jesus simply aren't compatible with the original religion.

There's no reason to take these stories seriously when they are so blatantly self-contradictory.

Besides, what sense would it make for a God to expect us, (some 2000 years removed from the time of Jesus) to believe in stories that people who actually met Jesus in person didn't believe. His own followers supposedly didn't believe in him until AFTER he supposedly rose from the dead. They weren't even willing to speak up when he was being crucified. Surely no one would stand by and let the son of God be crucified if they truly believed he was the son of God.

God also supposedly spoke from the clouds proclaiming Jesus to be his son. For what purpose? Did God think that Jesus was so unconvincing that he had to proclaim that Jesus was his son from the clouds? And now we're supposed to believe in this nonsense based on poorly written hearsay rumors some 2000 years later lest we'll be cast into hell as rebellious heretics?

I don't see how any Christians can take this theology seriously.

What about God supposedly going through all the trouble to have saints jostled from their graves to go into the Holy City (the city of the Jews) to show themselves to the people there. Yet the ONLY place we hear about this is from the Gospel of Matthew. No one else reported seeing any risen saints, and the Jews didn't suddenly become believers in Christianity or the resurrection of Christ.

Do we really even need to ask whether or not Jesus might have actually rose from the dead when the theology is clearly false?

We are going to be cast into hell if we don't believe in these ancient rumors of less than a handful of authors?

Surely you can't seriously think that any God would expect us to believe in such things lest he'll cast us into eternal damnation.

What kind of a God would that even be? Certainly not a God that anyone could trust.

The fact that we are even asking whether the resurrection of Jesus could be real, flies in the face of the overwhelming theological evidence against such an absurd thing.

Sure, a truly omnipotent God could supposedly pull such a stunt. By why would any decent God do such a dastardly thing? It simply makes no sense.

That's the real problem.

[bluegreenearth]

If Jesus' death was required for human salvation then it was far too little too late. This should have been offered to Adam and Eve if this was God's original plan. So the theology is dead in the water right there since Jesus would have been thousands of years too late.

The whole idea of a God having to resort to such a desperate tactic so late in the game requires that this God was both inept, and confused. Why did he bother drowning out sinners during the great flood, when those sinners could have been offered a chance to choose Jesus instead?

You've made an ingenious theological point regarding the purpose of sacrificing Jesus! Indeed, within the Christian theological framework, why didn't God have Jesus sacrificed immediately after Adan & Eve brought sin into the world? I anxiously await the apologetic that could possibly explain their God's theological purpose for drowning sinners in a world-wide flood when they could have been offered eternal salvation if the sacrifice of Jesus didn't have to wait until after the fact. I encourage you to start a new thread where this issue can be developed further.

I recall the late and great Christopher Hitchens noting something similar regarding the gratuitous suffering the human species had to experience including the extinction of all other sentient hominid species while the omni-benevolent Christian God neglected to offer any hope of eternal salvation for their tortured souls because, for some inexplicable reason, Jesus couldn't be sacrificed for another several thousand years. I'm unaware of any reasonable theological response to this criticism but suspect the apologists will post something before long.

[Zzyzx]

.

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?

Multiple DISCONNECTED / independent sources would be a good start.

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.

Correction: We have a handful of salesmen quoted in company promotional literature telling stories.

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 long-dead bodies came back to life as reported in gospels, it would seem as though people other than religion promoters would have regarded it as a significant event.

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.

Is that a claim of omniscience? You KNOW what I would do?

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

It would be reasonable that the Roman chronicler / historian Josephus (who supposedly mentioned Jesus) would have mentioned that he came back to life after being killed.

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,

The 'case' for the 'resurrection' is four people of uncertain identity, writing decades after the claimed event telling the story (that they cannot be shown to have witnessed) – plus one account by someone who claims to have met the deceased in a 'vision' (or hallucination, or delusion, or fantasy, or whatever it was).

but a good historical investigation will also include people's testimonies.

Key word is 'include' – NOT be base solely upon.

It will attempt to sift through the testimony to see what holds up and what doesn't.

Are the salesman stories confirmed as truthful and accurate?

Proper history is not all-or-nothing with the sources (which are always biased to some degree by those writing them).

That is why consulting multiple disconnected sources is important. The promoters of the new religion idolizing Jesus just MIGHT be a tad biased in the same direction.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 16 by Zzyzx]

Only if you want to play on words.

You left out...... and avoid actually addressing the issue raised. This is such a common tactic and it is getting very tiresome.

[The Tanager]

Do we really even need to ask whether or not Jesus might have actually rose from the dead when the theology is clearly false?

What does the inspiration of the Bible, the coherency of atonement theories, coherency of other Christian teachings, and all that have to do with a real debate of the evidence for resurrection? Assume that all that theology is wrong and it does nothing for or against the case for Jesus' resurrection being a historical event. Or give a direct argument for connecting the two to help me better see why they should be connected in the way you think it is.

[The Tanager]

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

Multiple DISCONNECTED / independent sources would be a good start.

What do you mean by "disconnected"?

Correction: We have a handful of salesmen quoted in company promotional literature telling stories.

All sources come from a bias. Historians do not discount everything said because of this. They sift through and see what holds up.

If long-dead bodies came back to life as reported in gospels, it would seem as though people other than religion promoters would have regarded it as a significant event.

We are talking about Jesus' resurrection. He doesn't go to those who weren't his disciples besides his brother James (who possibly became a disciple before Jesus' supposed resurrection) and then Paul. Why would non-disciples regard hearsay (alone) of Jesus' resurrection as evidence for a significant event and record it as such?

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.

Is that a claim of omniscience? You KNOW what I would do?

No, I'm following the logic of what I understood you to say. Certainly correct my misunderstandings of your words. Didn't you say that the "ONLY proof 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 a non-believer becomes a believer/buddy/associate/religion promoter and then offers their testimonial account...aren't those the accounts you are saying should be discounted?

It would be reasonable that the Roman chronicler / historian Josephus (who supposedly mentioned Jesus) would have mentioned that he came back to life after being killed.

Only if Josephus thought it were true. He was born after Jesus' crucifixion. He grew up a Pharisee. He wrote Antiquities after the Canonical Gospels. If he thought it were true, he'd have converted and then been a believer/buddy/associate/religion promoter offering their testimonial account, which it seems like you were saying shouldn't be considered in a real debate.

The 'case' for the 'resurrection' is four people of uncertain identity, writing decades after the claimed event telling the story (that they cannot be shown to have witnessed) – plus one account by someone who claims to have met the deceased in a 'vision' (or hallucination, or delusion, or fantasy, or whatever it was).

That's not my case. I haven't even offered a case. I'm still trying to see what kind of "debate" you are talking about, specifically concerning if we must throw out any Christian source completely from that time.

but a good historical investigation will also include people's testimonies.

Key word is 'include' – NOT be base solely upon.

I agree.

[Zzyzx]

.

Correction: We have a handful of salesmen quoted in company promotional literature telling stories.

All sources come from a bias. Historians do not discount everything said because of this. They sift through and see what holds up.

It is wise to be aware of bias in evaluation of the credibility of sources of information.

Salesman of cars (or religions) are expected to be biased in favor of their product. A buyer of cars is well advised to consult independent testing or rating organizations.

One considering the 'resurrection' is well advised to ask for evidence from sources other than those with a vested interest in promoting the tale.

If long-dead bodies came back to life as reported in gospels, it would seem as though people other than religion promoters would have regarded it as a significant event.

We are talking about Jesus' resurrection. He doesn't go to those who weren't his disciples besides his brother James (who possibly became a disciple before Jesus' supposed resurrection) and then Paul. Why would non-disciples regard hearsay (alone) of Jesus' resurrection as evidence for a significant event and record it as such?

According to 1 Corinthians 15:6 Jesus appeared to far more than just his disciples.

“After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.�

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.

Is that a claim of omniscience? You KNOW what I would do?

No, I'm following the logic of what I understood you to say. Certainly correct my misunderstandings of your words. Didn't you say that the "ONLY proof 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 a non-believer becomes a believer/buddy/associate/religion promoter and then offers their testimonial account...aren't those the accounts you are saying should be discounted?

I have consistently asked for ADDITIONAL information to verify the accounts and have said nothing about discounting.

It would be reasonable that the Roman chronicler / historian Josephus (who supposedly mentioned Jesus) would have mentioned that he came back to life after being killed.

Only if Josephus thought it were true.

Exactly. If Josephus heard accounts and did not regard them as true, he would not be expected to record them.

He was born after Jesus' crucifixion. He grew up a Pharisee. He wrote Antiquities after the Canonical Gospels. If he thought it were true, he'd have converted and then been a believer/buddy/associate/religion promoter offering their testimonial account, which it seems like you were saying shouldn't be considered in a real debate.

How can we be certain that Josephus would have converted? That is just an opinion. In that era tales of gods dying and coming back to life were evidently not uncommon.

If he DID hear the tales and doubt their authenticity, perhaps it would be prudent to consider his evaluation (as a person of the times).

The 'case' for the 'resurrection' is four people of uncertain identity, writing decades after the claimed event telling the story (that they cannot be shown to have witnessed) – plus one account by someone who claims to have met the deceased in a 'vision' (or hallucination, or delusion, or fantasy, or whatever it was).

That's not my case. I haven't even offered a case. I'm still trying to see what kind of "debate" you are talking about, specifically concerning if we must throw out any Christian source completely from that time.

I suggest that rather than throwing out, we ask for identity of the sources and for additional information (disconnected – not promotional material) to verify the authenticity of information provided.

It seems as though we should be at least as concerned about truth and accuracy in that case as a prudent person would be when buying real estate.

[mitty]

[Replying to post 7 by Divine Insight]

Why would a God who wants to impress people with his magical powers not restore Jesus to pristine health? That fact alone makes me question the entire thing.

He campaigned diligently for about 3 years before dying, but in the 40 days after resurrecting he failed to take any advantage of his unique status and essentially did nothing.

Perhaps he was resuscitated by Joseph and Nicodemus with the help of 30 kg of healing agents including Aloe vera (John 19:39-40) and then high-tailed it to India with Doubting Thomas and is buried near Srinager. https://scroll.in/article/825099/this-c ... n-srinagar

[Willum]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

While it is true that if the universe is a model or simulation, resurrection could be as easily accomplished as resetting an avatar.
Or it could be just as impossible if the rules that orchestrate the virtual universe are as deeply ingrained in the program, as they are the physical world.

Can you imagine trying to reprogram one thing in a continuous universe?
Can we rely on this program to be without bugs?

In any event, if all this were a program, and we are all independent programs in a virtual environment, then resurrection is the least of logical problems.

One would be if he just violates laws or programming so easily, then why not just leap straight to the goals?

So, though true, and this God is some kind of super programmer, it raises for more questions than it answers.

We usually avoid those kind of paradoxes... those the are more efficiently resolved by ignoring the generator of them, for the simple solution.

Either road I think, leads to the same conclusion, either a physical reality where resurrection is impossible, or one of a super programmer where we need to explore an infinite number of variables simply to explore the topic.