Why Believe This Claim?

[POI]

Taken from an exchange here (posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&p=1166484).

It doesn't matter to me what the disciples saw and experienced. I believe they saw and experienced a resurrected Jesus, but the particulars are of little interest to me.

In essence, I'd like to focus here...

For Debate: Why believe that a man laid dead in a tomb for 1 1/2 to 3 days, and then rose again?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #110]

1. Your response does not address the structural pattern that Christianity follows—a dying-and-rising savior god, a virgin birth, sacrificial redemption, and an apocalyptic end—all of which existed in prior religions. Simply saying that Christianity 'goes beyond' these myths does not disprove its adaptation from them. Every myth evolves and rebrands older motifs to fit new social paradigms. Christianity is no different.

What "facts" have you presented about the resurrection story which I have refused to address?

2. The issue is not whether Christians claim God is 'all-original' in everything, but rather that Christianity insists on its divine uniqueness while following mythological structures found in older religions. You cannot simultaneously argue that Christianity is uniquely true and also that it borrowed mythological frameworks. If Christianity is borrowing and adapting myths, then why should it be seen as divine rather than part of human religious development?

3. If God is all-wise, why would He need to recycle mythological concepts rather than reveal something entirely original? The contradiction is that Christianity claims divine wisdom yet follows the exact patterns of human religious development. If divine wisdom means borrowing from prior myths, then how is Christianity any different from human-made religions?

4. You assume suffering is 'bad' in all cases, but my framework allows for suffering as part of an experiential choice. If we assume suffering is necessary for consciousness expansion, then why would an omniscient God avoid it while still allowing free will? The assumption that a 'loving' creator must remove suffering contradicts the idea that free will itself is a greater good.

5. Not all belief systems are equally prone to institutional misuse. Christianity uniquely structured itself around obedience, hierarchy, and submission to authority, which made it particularly useful for empire-building. You have not addressed why Christianity, unlike other religions, was so easily aligned with centralized power structures.
Your response assumes that human corruption is inevitable due to people choosing 'for themselves' in their limited understanding. But this presupposes that humans are naturally 'bad' rather than primarily ignorant and evolving in their understanding. The issue isn’t that humans are inherently prone to corruption, but that centralized belief structures (such as Christianity’s) amplify ignorance by enforcing dogma rather than encouraging exploration.
Christianity is uniquely prone to corruption precisely because it defines corruption, then institutionalizes itself as the enforcer of moral authority—which is inherently a position of power. Unlike decentralized or non-dogmatic spiritual traditions, Christianity historically placed itself in a position where it could both declare what corruption is and simultaneously serve as a conduit for corruption.
It is not simply that Christianity 'became corrupted'—Christianity became a tool for justifying corruption because it merged moral authority with institutional control. This created a system where those in power could manipulate Christian doctrine to justify their actions while condemning the same behaviors in others.
Christianity identifies corruption (sin, heresy, immorality), making it the 'arbiter' of righteousness.
Christianity grants authority to specific institutions (the Church, clergy, religious leaders), centralizing power.
Christianity enforces obedience through mechanisms of guilt, submission, and divine punishment.
Those in power use Christianity’s moral framework to justify their actions while suppressing dissent.
Christianity ensures its self-preservation by controlling doctrine and punishing deviations.

🡆 The result? Christianity does not just "become corrupted"—it provides a built-in framework that enables corruption while maintaining its moral authority.

6. Free will alone does not explain why Christianity, unlike other religions, was shaped into an imperial power structure. Other belief systems did not enforce obedience in the same way Christianity did. If Christianity was divinely guided, why was it structured in a way that made institutional corruption inevitable?

You claim that moral perfection cannot exist with free will, yet Christianity teaches that humans should strive for moral perfection and that heaven is a state of moral perfection.

If moral perfection is impossible under free will, does that mean heaven must also eliminate free will?

"Other" can be thought of as AI.

If free will can only be understood by sentience, then a being must be aware of its own choices, their consequences, and the ability to act independently.
AI today is not fully sentient but can simulate decision-making and adapt based on data, yet it does not exhibit true existential self-awareness.
If sentience = free will, then AI must be sentient before it can possess or even comprehend free will.

🡆 Implication: If AI becomes sentient, it would have to recognize itself as a free agent before we could say it has free will.

7. Religious institutions absolutely controlled biblical meaning—through councils, doctrine enforcement, and suppression of alternative Christianities. If institutions didn’t control meaning, why were early alternative texts labeled heretical and treated with contempt?

My framework answers that question by the understanding that the real "hierarchy" are the gods who created this environment and placed sentience in it.
This means that Useful Fiction in whatever controlling organism owns it - mirrors that hierarchy and a human who understands that principle see through the human hierarchy as the puppets of the gods in the sense that ultimately understanding the "Useful" in "Fiction" and here we all are now in the age of robots who are trained to be moral.

So, no - in calling out Christianity I am not bashing it by saying it is a Useful Fiction. Rather I am acknowledging it's role in the greater reality.

8. Christianity’s ultimate proof is Jesus' return, yet it remains perpetually deferred. This follows the same pattern of failed religious prophecies. If Jesus’ return never happens, how is Christianity different from other self-perpetuating belief systems that promise fulfillment but never deliver?

The answer to that question might be that Christians support AI related development and insist that it is used to build what God wants humans to build.
Whatever that might be that christians can agree on...

"Meanwhile" as Bobby said "life outside goes on all around us."

[William]

The Resurrection is Not a Standalone Event
In Christian theology, the resurrection is only part of the story. It leads directly to:

The Ascension – Jesus leaving Earth and returning to the divine realm.
The Promised Return – The Second Coming, in which Jesus is expected to return to complete God’s plan.
If Jesus' return never happens, then the resurrection remains an incomplete narrative, requiring reinterpretation or theological adaptation.
🡆 Implication: The resurrection alone does not "prove" Christianity's truth if the story remains unfinished.

The Resurrection as a "Bridge" Between Phases of Belief
Resurrection myths existed before Christianity—Osiris, Mithras, Dionysus, etc.
What made Jesus' resurrection different was the claim that it was historically true and led to an expected future event (the Second Coming).
If the Second Coming remains perpetually delayed, then the resurrection’s significance shifts:

It remains mythological rather than historical (if there’s no fulfillment).
It transitions from a literal event to a symbolic archetype for human transformation and consciousness evolution.
It forces Christianity to adapt to a non-literal interpretation—or risk cognitive dissonance.

The Resurrection as a Call to Action, Not a Waiting Game
If the resurrection is not about proving divine power but about how Christians should proceed in building what God wants on Earth, then waiting for the Second Coming is unnecessary. Instead, believers would:

See technological progress as part of fulfilling God's will.
Insist on AI and innovation being used to construct a better world.
Shift their focus from passive belief to active co-creation.

🡆 Implication: If the resurrection is about action rather than expectation, then Christians should not be waiting for a return—they should be facilitating the "descension" of divine principles into reality.

The "Descension" as the Mirror of the Ascension
The ascension (Jesus rising) symbolizes a departure.
The descension (bringing divinity into the world) symbolizes active engagement with creation.
Instead of expecting Jesus to return to "fix" everything, humanity takes responsibility for making divine ideals real.

🡆 Implication: Christianity must shift from a heaven-focused expectation to an Earth-centered realization.

AI as the Tool for Making This Vision a Reality
If God wants humans to achieve something, technology is the tool to make it happen.
AI can be the mechanism for ethical progress, justice, and societal transformation.
Instead of fearing AI, Christianity should integrate it into its vision of a better world.

🡆 Implication: The real "return of Christ" may not be a singular event but the collective progress of humanity toward divine ideals, facilitated by AI and technology.

The Death of Passive Faith, The Birth of Active Co-Creation
If Christians embrace this perspective, they will no longer wait—they will build.
This mindset makes Christianity a force for innovation rather than stagnation.
The belief in divine purpose shifts from a prophecy to a directive: "Create the world as it should be."

🡆 Implication: The true resurrection is not a past event—it is the ongoing process of lifting human civilization toward a higher state of being.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #112]

1-2. I feel that I have responded to the pattern you claim Christianity adapted that shows it isn't of divine origin. It rests on a standard of "all-originality" that you won't say why that should be the standard. Without that I don't feel the parallels are strong enough for your conclusion that Christianity is just borrowing from earlier myths and not any different.

3. I have responded to the contradictions that you claim exists between my assertion that God is not "all-original", yet is omniscient and original in creation (including morality), which you haven't responded back to.

4. I have never assumed suffering is bad in all cases, only that some of the suffering we willingly cause others is bad because it is unnecessary. You seem to think all of it is necessary, but that's been an openly admitted unsupported claim ("if we assume suffering is necessary for consciousness expansion"). Don't assume it; show the suffering I'm talking about (what we beings freely choose and not something like the suffering a dentist causes for the health of our mouths) is necessary for the greater good.

I'm not claiming a loving God would remove all suffering. Instead, I'm claiming that when deciding how to set up the environment, it is more loving to allow an all-good, all-loving being to set it up rather than ones that have shown evidence of making choices that inflict unnecessary suffering on others.

5. That Christianity is 'uniquely' prone to corruption is irrelevant even if it isn't wrong (and it is wrong since many other religions have the same unified structure built in unless you are now using 'unique' in a different way from your critique on the parallels). Other ways are just as 'uniquely' prone to corruption, just not in the same 'unique' way. What you must show is that Christianity is surpassingly more prone so that a loving God wouldn't use such a movement.

6. I did not say moral perfection can't exist with free will. I claimed that, at creation, moral perfection at all times can't be guaranteed if free will is given. Humans still could have always made the right choice (if they had trusted an omniscient God instead of trying to decide what was best on their own limited understanding).

Further, what Christianity claims is a way free will and moral perfection can both ultimately exist. A world where beings can choose and, if they fail, are given a way to recover in a way that doesn't turn them into robots to where, eventually, they will freely make morally good choices all of the time.

As to your AI part, I still need help in seeing how you are connecting it to our discussion. Over the disagreement about whether we should have been asked if we wanted to be a part of this reality? Something else? Whatever the connection please clarify why that is the right connection to make.

7. Religious institutions can (try to) control their members' interpretations and threaten punishments, but that doesn't mean all religious institutions do or that the religion itself calls for that. I have been in many Christian circles where we are encouraged to read other perspectives and consider and reason. You talk about alternative Christianities, but you seem to be dividing them into two camps. You seem to make this a thing between Romanized vs. Gnostic versions, but there are many more versions.

My claim is that anything beyond the original version is a distortion (whether that distortion is good or bad is another matter). I'm interested in what original Christianity is. That's why we've talked about parallels among other things. And that means looking at the earliest texts. Rome didn't change those texts. They tried to control the interpretations but failed (since alternative interpretations and even alternative texts have survived). That's what I mean when I say that institutions don't control Biblical meaning. We have the resources to investigate and decide for ourselves what the Biblical meaning is.

And there is no problem with thinking other people have "heretical" interpretations. Everybody, including you, does this. You think certain interpretations are wrong; I do; we all do. We may use different terms, but the concept is the same. Some Christians (and other groups as well) go further, though, and persecute "heretics" and that's not right.

8. While original Christianity speaks of both resurrection and Jesus' return as both true, they are separate concepts that can and should be treated separately. The Christian texts could be right about resurrection and wrong about Jesus' return, for instance. They don't live or die as one. Yes, you'd become a different branch of Christian, but the two events aren't as interconnected in truth value as you claim.

On Jesus' return we have a complete lack of evidence either way. Jesus' kingdom isn't fully here with him returning as king. But we also lack evidence that there is an actual eternal lack of a return. Absence of a return currently is not evidence of an eternal lack of a return, which is what you need to use this as a proof against original Christianity. Therefore, this "ultimate proof" is actually irrelevant.

On the other hand, an actual resurrection by someone claiming to be divine and him saying that his death changes everything for humans is a game changer. The lack of evidence of a return at this moment does absolutely nothing, logically, to show the resurrection is mythological instead of historical, symbolic instead of literal, or result in cognitive dissonance. Thus, one must look at the historical evidence.

The facts surrounding the resurrection I mentioned were that Jesus lived, was crucified, buried in a tomb, which was later found empty, some of his followers and enemies claimed to have seen him risen, and the Christian movement was launched by Jews that made Jesus' life, death, and especially resurrection its central message. Those are the claimed facts that you refuse to address.

I do agree with two specific corollaries in your last post, though:

(a) Christians are too focused on Jesus' return even though Jesus said they wouldn't know when it's coming and to keep doing the things of God, loving people better and striving for a better world, so that when it happens they won't miss out.

(b) Christians have misunderstood heaven to be some far-off future-only afterlife we'll some day be transported to, when the Biblical texts teach that this world is meant to be transformed into heaven, now, and that is to be our work. That is what will extend into eternity.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #89]

I think there are two important senses to distinguish here.

On theism, morality does ultimately come down to choices by the moral dictator ("that's just the way it is"). But so do physical laws, what the planets are like, etc. If theism is true, Earth exists in the way it does, in one sense, because that's just the way God decided to do things.

The difference is that "Mars is red" is ultimately a real thing, and "Mars should be green" is a value judgment. If God made Mars and decided he wanted it red, good for him. I think it's ugly but I didn't make it and it's not mine. When I do make something, if I like, I can make it whatever colour I like. God can say I'm wrong, but he's being just as much of a prissypants as I'd be if I said Mars should have been green.

Likewise, if morality wouldn't exist without God, it doesn't really exist with him either. He's the biggest dog in the yard and he can reward or punish the others, but that's all. If he made humanity they're his up to a point (notably every sci-fi story about the poor enslaved robots seems to contradict this make = own principle at the point of consciousness), and he can decide whether people have hair on their heads or not, are able or crippled, tall or short, or even nice or nasty. Some people get pleasure from hurting others. God can decide he likes it when I lie down before them and let them hurt me. But I don't like that, and since it's a taste thing, to my mind, everyone counts equal whether they're a god or not.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #114]

I was wondering if history shows incidence of atheist leading the charge re morality.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #114]

On (certain forms of) theism, that humans should care for each other, isn’t just a value judgment, but a real, objective purpose through the act of creation. That becomes an objective truth about how humans run best. We are physically, mentally, and emotionally better when we live into that objective purpose because of the connection God makes in creating us to work that way.

Yes, we can choose our own subjective purposes, but it doesn’t override the objective purpose we were created with or make us ultimately happier, even when we can trick ourselves into thinking we are. People actually get less pleasure than they could, if they chose not to live how God says we should.

Atheism, on the other hand, doesn’t provide objective purpose.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #65]

We also agree that we have the stoutest and strongest evidence that rotting bodies do not rise. Hence, the conversation is over.

I will agree the conversation is over because you just continue to repeat yourself, while continuing to create straw-man arguments in which you continue to debate yourself. As an example above, where you make the argument that "rotting bodies do not rise" which I have agreed, which means I am not making such an argument. We agree "rotting bodies do not rise." I think we would also agree that such an event would be extraordinary, to the point of being impossible.

The problem is you have failed miserably at the task you were given, which was simply to give us some sort of explanation of the facts and evidence we have (which you claim we do not have) which could explain what we can know concerning the events surrounding the resurrection appearances, which would not include the unlikely, extraordinary, ridiculous, and the next to impossible. Continuing to tell us "dead bodies do not rise" (which is something we agree upon) does not explain what we can know concerning the events surrounding the resurrection appearances.

It is instead game-set-match.

It certainly seems to be in your mind, but this is not shocking at all coming from one who held the attitude that it was "game-set-match" when they were a convinced Christian for decades of their life, when they now freely admit that there is no evidence at all in support of what they were once convinced of, who now wants to convince us that it was the use of the mind which convinced them that what they were once convinced of has no evidence in support.

I mean, you seem to think you are now some sort of expert on the subject and that it gives you some sort of merit to admit the fact that you dedicated your life to a movement, which promotes a man rising from the dead. I cannot only assure you that you are not an expert but rather can prove you know very little at all concerning what is contained in the Bible, because it is a fact that you have admitted that what little you think you know concerning what is contained in the Bible, you simply received from others. Now that you have changed your mind, you continue to take the word of others, because you are certainly not making any arguments at all which we have not already heard. In fact, it is not that we have not already heard the arguments, rather it is the fact that the arguments you make are extremely elementary in that anyone at all who is able to do any sort of thinking, would have thought of the objections you bring up, right from the beginning.

As an example, when you make the argument, "dead bodies do not rise". Do you imagine there is any Christian at all who does not understand this? I mean, even one who may want to insist they were indoctrinated to believe such a thing has to know that what they are being indoctrinated to believe is not possible. And yet, we can know the early followers of Jesus (including the apostles) who also clearly understood that "dead bodies do not rise", were not simply making the claim that Jesus had rose, but rather we can know they were convinced this to be the case, and we can clearly know they knew what they had witnessed was not possible. You see, this is what we need an explanation for, and continuing to explain to us, "dead bodies do not rise" is not supplying us with such an explanation. Capeesh? You got it now? In other words, we do not need to continue to talk about what we can agree upon. What we need is an explanation of the facts and evidence we can know, which would not include the unlikely, extraordinary, ridiculous, or what we would consider to be impossible. Because the thing is, you cannot possibly come up with any sort of explanation of the facts and evidence we can know, which would even be possible. It is not gonna happen.

In the end all you are doing is to exchange one impossible scenario for another. We agree that a corpse rising from the dead is not possible. However, it is also impossible for these followers to be somehow involved in the theft of the body. It is just not possible. It is not possible that all these folks were having some sort of hallucination and this is what led to the appearances. It is not possible that Jesus may have simply appeared dead and was somehow nursed back to health. I could continue on, and on, with any scenario you like, and in the end what we would discover that such a scenario would be impossible. In the end, you are willing to believe anything at all, no matter how impossible the scenario may be, as long as it does not involve what you were once convinced of, which has consumed the overwhelming majority of your life, and continues to do so, as you continue to talk about these events, day, after day, after day, and the only ones who could possibly be convinced by your extremely elementary arguments, are yourself, along with anyone else who is willing to believe the impossible, as long as that impossible, does not involve that which I was convinced of well into adulthood, only to come to find that I did not use the mind to be convinced.

This means any/all claims from "the Bible' regarding a postmortem Jesus, a postmortem Lazarus, and postmortem saints roaming the city, are all equivocally false.

You see, here is where your thinking is so very flawed. You continue to bring in these other reports such as "Lazarus and postmortem saints roaming the city" as if they would have anything at all to do with the facts and evidence, we have surrounding the resurrection appearances. It has nothing to do with it at all. I am sure in your mind you have convinced yourself that if there is anything at all reported in these Gospels which are not true, this somehow demonstrates the rest must and has to be false. This has come about, because I am certain you were told (back when you simply took the word of others) that the Bible must and has to be inerrant, and if any error can be found this means the whole of what is contained in the Bible cannot be trusted in any way. The funny thing is, you would never, ever treat any other written material in this way. But the fact of the matter is, you have not at all demonstrated any of the content to be unreliable. The reason I do not debate you on this matter is because it does not matter in the least. In other words, even if you could demonstrate the content to be in error, it would have nothing whatsoever to do with the facts and evidence we can know, and therefore we would be wasting a lot of time on a matter, which does not even matter.

We have one verified dude who claims to have had a 'Damascus Road experience.' He claims others saw a risen Jesus too. But unfortunately, this would then involve the Gospels, and we know the Gospels are wacked. I have stated this numerous times with no pushback, which means you likely conceded that the Gospels are "wack".

Again, this is where the thinking is "wacked". We have more than simply "one verified dude" but again there is no need arguing over this because this is all we need. Because, you see, if we simply take Paul, we do not even have to know if his experience was real or not, and that is because from Paul, we can know the early followers of Jesus was making the claims of the resurrection very early on. This eliminates the idea that the resurrection narratives were created decades later by those who were not alive at the time, and we do not have to refer to the Gospels at all to know this to be a fact. We can also know from Paul, that these early followers of Jesus were not making the story up, but were rather reporting what they were convinced was a fact. You have to know that it is not possible that the resurrection appearances contained in what we call the Gospels, was created by those decades later who may not have been alive at the time of the events, and yet you act as if you were to demonstrate the Gospels to be unreliable anywhere at all, this would somehow make the whole house of cards fall down.

But let us go on to think about the idea the Gospels may have been authored decades later. Well, how many decades are we talking about? One thing we know for certain is the fact that the letters we have from Paul would have had to be authored decades later. In fact, we know that some of Paul's letters would have been authored more than thirty years after the death of Jesus. That is over 3 decades, so exactly what sort of argument is it that the Gospels may have been authored decades later, when this is exactly what would have been expected? In other words, this demonstrates clearly that the Gospels could have very well have been authored decades later, and the author could have very well been alive at the time of the events recorded. But again, the thing is, we do not even need the Gospels in order to determine facts we can know which need some sort of explanation which would exclude the impossible.

Of course there is... Paul himself was either mistaken - due to drugs, or maybe heat exhaustion, or disease (like Malaria, other), or unidentified mental illness (or), maybe Paul was part of the 'me-too' movement, (or) other other other (infinity)...? However, what we DO KNOW, is that because we have very stout evidence and very stout facts, which demonstrate that rotting bodies do not rise again, Paul could not possibly have actually seen what he says he actually saw. But sure, we will never really know why Paul claimed what he claimed for sure.?.?

As I have already stated, we do not even have to know what Paul claimed to have experienced was real, nor in order to know what the apostles, and others were claiming very early on. Next, all of the explanations you give above, are not only impossible, but they are also ridiculous, which is one of the categories you claim we must and have to avoid. This sort of demonstrates you are not interested in a serious conversation. You have no arguments of your own, and you have no explanation of the facts and evidence we have. You cannot continue to insist on what we can know could not have occurred because it is not possible, until, or unless you can give us an explanation of the facts we can know which would not be impossible. You continue to demonstrate one who is willing to believe anything at all, no matter how impossible it may be, in order to reject what you would rather not have to admit.

It's no 'tactic'. Please stop name-dropping, while calling them "scholars", and also announcing how many other skeptic 'scholars' agree. This means absolutely nothing. Just stick to the points for discussion.

You know for a fact that I am not referring to the scholars because I am under the impression that it adds anything to the argument. Rather, I am referring to critical scholars who tell us what we can be certain of by reading the material contained in the NT whether the material is trustworthy or not, and you can attempt to refute what they have to tell us, or continue to avoid which certainly seems to be exactly what you are doing. In other words, you certainly have not attempted to refute this (because you cannot) and therefore, you want to argue about bringing the scholars into the equation. Either there is certain things we can know, or your argument is that the scholars are incorrect as to what we can know.

Then maybe you are not as well versed as I previously thought you were. Do you honestly think that your position is a new one? Do you honestly think that your position never crossed the minds of the mythicist position? Seriously?

Do you honestly think that I have to know the assertions of the mythicist to know if there are facts and evidence we can know surrounding the resurrection appearances? This is exactly what I have been attempting to get across to you. None of the comparisons to the religions of the world has anything at all to do with it. I mean, even if there may be reasons to believe these other things, would not in any way negate the fact that there is reason surrounding the claims of the resurrection. To make sure you understand, I am not suggesting there are reasons to believe these other claims, rather I am insisting that these other claims have nothing to do with it, and therefore, there is no reason to even attempt to determine whether this would be the case or not.

Based upon my earnest research

I'd really love to know what this "so called" research involved. However, I think we are about to find out below.

he might have existed

You wanna talk about someone "peeing themselves"? There is no one, and I mean no one, who is serious about this conversation who would ever think about typing out the words, "Jesus may have existed". I mean this alone demonstrates one who is simply believing what they would rather believe, which is not shocking at all coming from one who freely admits to this very same thing in the past, for decades of their life. Seriously! We already know this is what you tend to do, but for some strange reason you want us to believe the thinking has changed. One thing I can tell you is, the mind can change, while the thinking stays the same.

But to what capacity, and what he did or did not do, as a mortal man, is all up in the air.

Allow me to explain to you what is not "up in the air", and that would be the fact that we have those alive at the time who were making the claim that they had witnessed Jesus alive very soon after the execution, and we can know they could not have possibly made the reports up. We also know that it is not possible that the authors of the Gospels added the narrative of the resurrection decades later. That my friend, is not "up in the air" in the least.

However, I have also watched a few podcasts with mythicists, and I have to say they make some fair points too.

Again, you really want to talk about someone "peeing" themselves? This is hilarious! I mean, you want to tell us you were convinced of a man rising from the dead for decades when there would be no reason at all to believe such a thing, but now you want to tell us, the "mythicists make some fair points"? You have really out done yourself here. This is why your whole argument is ridiculous. The Christian (which you were at one time) has absolutely no reason involved in what they believe, but the "mythicists make some fair points". You can't make this stuff up! You see, I can understand someone being a Christian and coming to a different conclusion without insisting there would be no reason at all to be convinced of what you were once convinced of. It is quite another for one to be convinced for decades, and then insist there would be no reason to believe what you were once convinced of. All you are doing is to demonstrate one who was convinced for decades with no reason to be convinced, who then wants to transpose this sloppy thinking on to anyone else who may be convinced in the same way. The fact which you have already admitted to is that there are very intelligent folks on both sides of the debate, and you have convinced yourself there are easy answers to explain why there are intelligent folks who are opposed to you by somehow insisting they must and had to employ the same sloppy thinking as you did. However, as has already been demonstrated, there are extremely intelligent folk, who were completely opposed to Christianity, to the point they were attempting to speak out against it, who converted in the process, one of whom was a professor, and credits her vast knowledge of language for this conversion.

I want to be clear here in saying that I am not under the impression in the least, that this has a thing at all to do with adding anything at all to Christianity being true. What it does demonstrate however, is one can use fact, evidence, reason, and logic and come to a position opposed to the one you hold. And the thing is, this is your whole argument, because we are not attempting to determine if a resurrection occurred or not. Rather, our argument is whether there is facts, evidence, and reason involved in coming to such a conclusion. Your problem seems to be, that you did not use the mind to come to such a conclusion, and the Christians around you have not use the mind, and they continue to be Christian without the use of the mind, and this has caused you to come to the conclusion that it is impossible to use the mind to come to such a conclusion, while the facts demonstrate you to be in error.

I guess, for me, since I am no longer invested, like the believer

Oh, but I can assure you that you are indeed "invested". You may not be invested as far as being a believer, but for one to take the position which you have by insisting there is no reason involved at all in coming to the position opposed to the one you hold, is greatly invested in the position. In fact, I would say you are far more invested than I am, because I am not insisting that one could not use reason to come to a different conclusion. I can tell you that your arguments are not supporting this to be the case, but I am well aware that one person's reasoning does not demonstrate there is no reason to be had.

I absorb all of them all and take them all with a grain of salt.

"Taking them with a grain of salt" means to "not completely believe something that you are told, because you think it is unlikely to be true". Is this the position you hold concerning Christianity? I really do not believe that this is the case. I do not think that your position is, Christianity is unlikely to be true. Rather, you are insisting that it is not true, and that there would be no reason to believe it to be true. So then, you are doing far more than "taking it with a grain of salt". The thing is, if you simply did not completely believe Christianity to be true and held to it that it would be unlikely to be true, then I would really have no problem with this position at all, because in this way you would not be insisting that Christianity was false. The problem is this is not your position in the least. Rather, you hold to the position that Christianity is false, and there is no "grain of salt" involved, but the problem is, you have failed to demonstrate this to be the case, other than in your own mind.

I am just telling you, that I am not insisting Christianity must, and has to be true (as you more than likely did when you were convinced with no reason) and I am not insisting there would be no reason for doubt, and or complete unbelief. The fact of the matter is, I completely understand the doubt, and or the complete unbelief along with the reason behind it. The reason I can understand this is because any thinking person at all would have to understand it. What a thinking person would not be able to understand is one who wants to insist something must and has to be false, along with there would be no reason to believe, when they cannot in the least demonstrate this to be the case.

I am just here to tell you from one who has been at this for decades, telling us that "dead bodies do not rise" along with comparing Christianity to the religions of the world, along with insisting the content of the NT is not reliable, along with telling us you were once a convinced Christian, along with explaining to us you are surrounded by Christians who do not use the mind to be convinced, is extremely elementary arguments, because we all understand that "bodies do not rise". We all understand there are an untold number of religions in the world, and they cannot all be true. We all understand there is material which may not be trustworthy, but we are sure concerning certain things by reading this material we do not consider to be absolutely trustworthy, because we understand there is certain things which cannot be denied. And here is the most important thing! We can all agree that the overwhelming majority of Christians have no idea what they believe, nor why they believe as they do, because like you, they simply accepted what they were taught without question. With this being the case, we can be certain that listening to these folks who do not know what it is they believe, nor why they believe it, because they have never really thought about what it is they think they believe, will more than likely not come close to telling us about Christianity.

What the above should also tell us is that when we have those who were Christians at one time, who did not use the mind to be convinced, and they are somehow able to carry on with this conviction well into adulthood, continuing to take the word of others, then many of these folks may indeed wake up one day can come to realize that they have never really used the mind in order to become convinced that a man rose from the grave, and they are shocked that they allowed themselves to do such a thing. Many of them also come to realize they have been exposed to, and maybe even practiced the most bizarre things, like maybe running up and down the aisles of a Church, speaking in gibberish which they were told was "speaking in tongues, maybe being "slain in the spirit" and other such nonsense, and they come to see these sorts of things as the nonsense that it is, and it is not shocking at all to see this same person reject that whole thing out of hand, without very much thinking at all, because this is what they have tended to do all of their lives. What I am telling you is, this is not shocking at all to me but is rather exactly what I would expect.

I mean, how in the world would we expect one who admits they simply took the word of others to become convinced Christianity to be true, to truly understand what Christianity actually is? It goes from the completely bizarre such as rolling in the aisles of the Church, to speaking in gibberish, to being slain in the spirit, to the health wealth Gospel, etc., but is also involves simple things like believing Christianity is about following the teachings of Jesus, when any thinking person at all would have to come to realize that Christianity could not possibly be about following the teachings of Jesus, since even the Biblical authors explain to us that we could not possibly have all the teachings of Jesus. If you would like some earnest advice which will indeed help you in your "so called research" I would suggest you get a copy of the book, "Putting Amazing Back into Grace". This is not at all an apologetic book, but it will certainly allow you to actually understand what you are so critical of, and it will demonstrate to you exactly how far off your understanding of Christianity is. Moreover, it will allow you to converse with those unthinking Christians you are surrounded by, and you just may be able to challenge what it is they think they believe. Or you can continue here in this site, continuing to make elementary arguments in debate against Christians who are just like you were in that they have no idea what they believe nor why they believe it, while convincing only yourself that your arguments are winning out in debate against Christians who are on the same level as you concerning Christianity, which is very little real knowledge at all.

I do not see 'red' when I feel a 'scholar' takes a seemingly 'blasphemous' position - that Jesus was not real.

I am not thinking that any serious scholar would ever take such a position, because they would not have a career for very long. However, that is beside the point because I can assure you that I do not flinch in the least when I hear any unbeliever make any sort of "blasphemous" comment. While many other Christians are "seeing red" I am as cool as a cucumber. I begin to see red when there are Christians who take a "blasphemous position" such as the speaking in tongues, health and wealth Gospel, holy laughter, slain in the spirit, and anything else which is a different Gospel. Right now, I am battling the Christian nationalists whose aim it is to take America by force and also aim to do away with our democracy. I believe in free thought and speech and believe this right should be extended to all. The point is, I can assure you that I am not offended or alarmed in the least by unbelievers making any sort of comments. I mean, I cannot understand why anyone would be alarmed at this. Rather, I think we should expect unbelievers to voice what it is they believe, and we should welcome their input. Again, I begin to see red when it is those who name the Name of Christ, who go on to want to put a stop to these other voices. Allow me to give you a real-life example.

Back in the 1990's I was attending a statewide conference which is held every year by the denomination I was a member of. At this conference, it was brought to the floor that we as a conference should send a letter of protest to Disney World, in order to show our disfavor toward Disney's decision to cover the partners of their gay employees on their insurance. When this motion was made, I stood on the floor of this statewide conference and asked the question, "what do we have to do with Disney"? I went on to say, "Disney does not name the Name of Christ, so how is it any of our concern?" I continued by saying, "there are any number of ministries out there who do in fact name the Name of Christ, who are preaching a false Gospel, and I would be in favor of not only sending them a letter of protest, but I would also be in favor of preventing any of our members from supporting them in any way". I think you get the point. It never has any sort of effect upon me as to what and unbeliever may have to say. I am concerned about what ignorant Christians say.

The reason I persist here, is, as I already told you long ago... If authority was not going around using this religious set of ideas as 'reality', I would not care.

I do not see why you would care if this is occurring inside the Church where folks are going freely to worship and believe as they wish. I think we can agree that this would be included in freedom of expression, in that no one is forcing folks to place themselves under the authority of any Church. However, if you are referring to those many Christians who aim to enforce their particular brand of Christianity upon the rest of society, I am right there with you and can demonstrate that I have been in the battle. I am not about forcing anyone to conform to my way of thinking, whether that means forcing them to adhere to my brand of Christianity, or forbidding them to worship as they see fit, no matter how wacked out I believe their brand to be.

4,000 years ago, you and I may have instead been arguing the veracity of Zeus or Odin.

I can guarantee you, that would not be the case. Because you see, you have convinced yourself that I am a Christian simply because of where I live, and the way in which I was brought up, and that if I had been born somewhere else, or at a different time that I would simply follow whatever religion there was at the time. However, this is not the case, and I could not have cared less about Christianity or any other religion. I did not go in wanting to believe the Christian claims, and in the end when I truly understood Christianity, I would have much rather not believed it. It should be obvious to you by now, that I am not the everyday Christian you run across, which should demonstrate to you that I think for myself and always have. So, no, I am certain I would not be attempting to defend the "veracity of Zeus or Odin".

I have never disputed this.

The reason you have never disputed the fact that the claims of the resurrection were being made SOON after the execution, is because you understand the evidence is overwhelming and therefore it is impossible to refute. What this goes on to mean is, there is no argument whatsoever that the authors of the Gospels may have added the resurrection appearances decades later. You see, this is one of those explanation of the facts we have which would be impossible to believe, and we could continue on down the line with whatever explanation you would like to put forth, and they would all end up in the impossible category, and yet you claim to reject the resurrection because it is impossible. My friend, the impossible, is the impossible, and there are no categories of impossible.

Negative, as no credible corroboration can attest to this claim. Once you introduce the Gospels, it's game over.

I have not introduced the Gospels. It is from Paul that we know the claims were being made SOON after the execution, and if these early followers were not convinced in what they reported, then this would mean they made the resurrection appearances up and this would have been impossible. There is no serious scholar as we have seen who would attempt to make the argument that the resurrection appearances were made up. I mean, have you ever sat down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for this to be the case? You are left with the fact that these folks were convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after the execution, and making these claims SOON thereafter, or these folks were reporting what they knew to be false. I am not thinking you really want to defend the idea that these folks knew what they were reporting was false. If these folks were reporting what they knew to be false, then these ordinary everyday folks, who had just witnessed their leader crucified before their very eyes, pulled off the most extraordinary event the world has ever known, by a long shot, and we do not need to read a word from any of the Gospels to know this to be a fact.

I mean, there would be nothing to compare in the least. It would be on par with, we never really traveled to the moon. I'm just telling you that it is hard to imagine that we actually traveled to the moon in the 1960's. However, what would be even harder to imagine is that NASA and the United States could pull off such a stunt. But the thing is, NASA, and the U.S. had far more intelligent people, and far more sophisticated equipment, and while the trip to the moon may have been a "giant leap for mankind" I really do not believe it has had as an enormous impact upon the world as these ordinary early followers of Jesus has had upon the world, who would have been reporting what they knew to be a lie. I mean, do you really want to talk about the unlikely? Do you really want to talk about the extraordinary? Do you want to talk about the incredible, the hard to believe? These ordinary folks, some 2000 years ago, watch Jesus crucified, and they are somehow able to come up with some sort of story, which has a more significant impact upon the history of the world than a trip to the moon? CMON MAN!

I have demonstrated that the Gospels are filled with deception, and/or 'alternative facts', and/or legend and lore.

Wait a minute? Who exactly authored what we call the Gospels? Was it the folks early on, whom you have demonstrated to be involved in deception? Or would it have been those decades later who may not have been alive at the time of the events recorded whom you have demonstrated to be involved in deception? If it was those decades later who may not have been alive at the time of the execution, then this would have nothing whatsoever to do with those who were alive. If it was those alive at the time, then you are admitting we have reports from the time of the events recorded. I mean, you cannot have it both ways. Either the authors were alive at the time of the events, and we can debate whether or not you have demonstrated the material to be unreliable. Or the authors were those decades later who were not alive at the time and the Gospels do not matter. Or we simply cannot know who the authors were, in which case they again do not matter.

However, the next question I have is, have you demonstrated the Gospels to be "deception and error"? Or have you demonstrated them to be "legend and lore"? You can have both, but what we would need to know is, which have you demonstrated to be "deception and error" as opposed to which ones would be "legend and lore"? Because you see, if you have demonstrated deception, then this would mean the author knew for certain that what they reported would be false. This would have to mean this author would have been alive at the time in order to know what he reported was false. Error on the other hand, could involve both those alive at the time, and or those later on. However, "legend and lore" usually involves those much later in time who add something to the story which was not originally there. You seem to be one who is attempting to throw a handful of spaghetti at the wall hoping something will stick.

Hmm, would this be from the Gospels? If so, then again, it is game over.

Hmm? No, it would not be from the Gospels in which we get the information that these folks continued to proclaim these things well into old age, because the Gospels only go as far as the end of the life of Jesus and tells us nothing of the life of those later. We can know this as well from the letters of Paul because we know that all of Paul's letters would have been authored decades after the death of Jesus and Paul mentions the other apostles along with what it is they were proclaiming.

Technically, you know the only thing saving you here is that such claims are truly unfalsifiable.

What I am willing to bet is that what you do not know is who it was that came up with the falsifiable claim concept, and the fact that this concept was intended to be confined to science, along with the fact that Popper (the one who came up with the concept) acknowledged that there may indeed be very good reasons to believe unfalsifiable claims, but that unfalsifiable claims would be outside the realm of science, because science is to deal with only those things which can be falsified. You see Popper understood that science could not answer the question as to whether a man had rose from the dead somewhere in history, because such a question would be outside the realm of science. Science can only tell us that a resurrection is scientifically impossible. However, when science declares an event to be scientifically impossible, this is not to say such an event did not occur, but rather if such an event did in fact occur then science would not be able to explain it, because such a thing would be outside the realm of science.

You continue to go on to show that you have no arguments of your own and are rather living off the arguments of others which sounds good to your ears but really has no substance. I mean, this argument is old, tired, and worn out, and it does not take very long for a thinking person to demonstrate the flaw, and yet you continue to make these lame arguments.

However, we also have very stout evidence that rotting bodies do not rise. So, it is logically game over.

The game will be over when you are able to demonstrate what it is you believed has given us these facts and evidence surrounding the resurrection appearances which would not be impossible. Because you see, all you are doing is to tell us a resurrection is impossible, and we all know this to be the case. What we need is some sort of explanation of the facts we have which would be possible.

This is exactly why I continue to say that when one sits down in order to discover what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false, they will necessarily come away understanding there are no easy answers. Unless of course, one is satisfied with easy answers, and one demonstrates they tend to be satisfied with easy answers when they freely admit to being convinced that a man rose from the dead, who then goes on to want to insist there would be no reason to believe such a thing, and now wants to insist there is some sort of easy answer to this question now that they have simply changed the mind. Like I have said, "easy in easy out". I am very sorry to tell you that it was not as easy as you thought when you were a Christian, and it is not any easier now that you have simply changed the mind.

I'm going to stop here.

The way things are going for you that would be a very good idea.

[marke]

Taken from an exchange here (posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&p=1166484).

It doesn't matter to me what the disciples saw and experienced. I believe they saw and experienced a resurrected Jesus, but the particulars are of little interest to me.

In essence, I'd like to focus here...

For Debate: Why believe that a man laid dead in a tomb for 1 1/2 to 3 days, and then rose again?

Marke: Humans can believe what they want but the truth will never change. Billions of sinners refuse to believe Jesus rose from the dead for the purpose of saving repentant sinners from their sins but those who refuse to believe God are destined to discover in the end that they were tragically wrong about a lot of things.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to marke in post #118]

Billions of sinners refuse to believe Jesus rose from the dead

The overwhelming majority of Christians who claim to believe that Jesus rose from the dead cannot explain what it is they really believe, nor why they believe it. Simply because one is a Christian and sincerely believes Jesus rose from the dead does not cause it to be true.

but those who refuse to believe God are destined to discover in the end that they were tragically wrong about a lot of things.

The above does not change the fact that there will be a whole lot of Christians who "are destined to discover in the end that they were tragically wrong about a lot of things."

[marke]

I trust that my faith in Jesus and His resurrection will be approved by God.