Can the Resurrection of Jesus be Defended

[Tired of the Nonsense]

There are no (Christians present) in actual point of fact. None that will support the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus as a point of "logic, reason and critical thinking." Unless there happens to be a Christian newbe present that I am unaware of who wishes to tackle the job. None of the Christian regulars here will defend the story of the resurrection beyond a "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it," defense.

Not so. None is all. I would defend it gladly. Logic and reason reveals what is most evident and what the Bible reveals is absolutely most evident. Start the thread up if you dare. Bring your best arguments.

[neptune1bond]

Firstly, which group do you claim I associate with? I would be fascinated to know.

I took this quote from your previous post:

"The only thing I can say is, I'm on your side and yet I don't believe in any god."

A person who doesn't believe in any God is a non-theist from my understanding. Therefor when you said:

"I think that tolerance of others is a hallmark of the non theist."

I thought that you were part of that group of "non-theists". But if I am wrong, then please let me know and I will correct it.

Or are you telling me that you do not associate with non-theism although you seem to have said that you are a non-theist (do not believe in any God).

It might also have escaped your attention but this post most definitely made claim that Danmark was intolerant of people and not their beliefs.

The reason that I specifically said,"my point is tolerance of others" rather than your tolerance of others is because I was trying to say that my aim in my posts in this thread is to encourage tolerance of others in general, meaning everyone's tolerance of others. Then I said,"not your acceptance of their beliefs" because I was trying to let Danmark know that I am not trying to convert him to a belief in Christ's resurrection. Sorry if I was unclear

But I would like to say that I do believe that if I go up to a jock and say that being a jock is the stupidest thing that a person can do and makes absolutely no sense, then am I being intolerant of him, or would you try and convince me that I'm only being intolerant of his choice to be in sports and that's absolutely different and completely acceptable? Insults about any facet of a person are personal (meaning about them) and is therefor intolerant of that person, as well as their beliefs/choices/actions and completely unnecessary. I would say that me being intolerant of a person being a jock is still being intolerant of that person, because it is a quality of that person, no matter how you look at it.

So, if someone mocks or ridicules my beliefs it is intolerant of me, in my opinion, and is just as unacceptable. Now if someone just says,"I disagree with you and here is why.." without being condescending, belittling, or insulting of me or my beliefs, then I take absolutely no issue.

[Iam]

Firstly, which group do you claim I associate with? I would be fascinated to know.

I took this quote from your previous post:

"The only thing I can say is, I'm on your side and yet I don't believe in any god."

A person who doesn't believe in any God is a non-theist from my understanding. Therefor when you said:

"I think that tolerance of others is a hallmark of the non theist."

I thought that you were part of that group of "non-theists". But if I am wrong, then please let me know and I will correct it.

Or are you telling me that you do not associate with non-theism although you seem to have said that you are a non-theist (do not believe in any God).

It might also have escaped your attention but this post most definitely made claim that Danmark was intolerant of people and not their beliefs.

The reason that I specifically said,"my point is tolerance of others" rather than your tolerance of others is because I was trying to say that my aim in my posts in this thread is to encourage tolerance of others in general, meaning everyone's tolerance of others. Then I said,"not your acceptance of their beliefs" because I was trying to let Danmark know that I am not trying to convert him to a belief in Christ's resurrection. Sorry if I was unclear

But I would like to say that I do believe that if I go up to a jock and say that being a jock is the stupidest thing that a person can do and makes absolutely no sense, then am I being intolerant of him, or would you try and convince me that I'm only being intolerant of his choice to be in sports and that's absolutely different and completely acceptable? Insults about any facet of a person are personal (meaning about them) and is therefor intolerant of that person, as well as their beliefs/choices/actions and completely unnecessary. I would say that me being intolerant of a person being a jock is still being intolerant of that person, because it is a quality of that person, no matter how you look at it.

So, if someone mocks or ridicules my beliefs it is intolerant of me, in my opinion, and is just as unacceptable. Now if someone just says,"I disagree with you and here is why.." without being condescending, belittling, or insulting of me or my beliefs, then I take absolutely no issue.

There's a couple of things here.
I am a non theist but I wasn't aware that non theists had a group or associated with like minded people. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not into group hugs especially with people whose only commonality with me is a disbelief in any and all gods. Doesn't seem like my sort of crowd.
What is it that constitutes condescending, belittling, mocking and ridiculing to your beliefs if an absolute flat out refusal to give those beliefs any credence, isn't?
I give your beliefs in a GOD no credence whatsoever, have I ridiculed your beliefs? More importantly have I mocked you?

[neptune1bond]

The problem here is that you have these dogs being revived in a controlled environment. You have cells being kept alive in a controlled environment. This environment is naturally controlled by humans. You are supposing a possibility that the same can happen without any of the equipment or tools that humans use. You even invented an invisible catheter which you may mean an IV. Im not asking you to prove anything. Im asking for you to realize that you see that you are jumping from natural to supernatural without any merit to do so.

I responded to you about the "invisible" catheter in a previous post that I'm not sure you read yet, please review it and let me know if I understand your problem with it. I simply used the word catheter because they did in the article about the study. If my term or usage is incorrect, then I apologize.

As far as "controlled environments" go, that doesn't somehow prove that it couldn't happen in an uncontrolled environment. See this article here:

http://www.livescience.com/6594-mystery ... ought.html

Stories of people frozen "in nature", and then revived later. The article says that the Japanese man was revived after 23 days, I'd like to point out. Much longer than even 30 hours.

The dog study might very well have been inspired in the first place by these or similar cases and they were simply trying to recreate the scenario that happened in an uncontrolled environment.

But controlled or uncontrolled is beyond the point. If scientists can do it in a controlled environment, then what uncontrolled circumstance would make it absolutely impossible for God to do? Why, if these things are possible on any level for scientists, should any theist ever accept that it is impossible for God? You have no case for making these things impossible, which you would have to show to say that I have not shown it to be possible.

[Iam]

The problem here is that you have these dogs being revived in a controlled environment. You have cells being kept alive in a controlled environment. This environment is naturally controlled by humans. You are supposing a possibility that the same can happen without any of the equipment or tools that humans use. You even invented an invisible catheter which you may mean an IV. Im not asking you to prove anything. Im asking for you to realize that you see that you are jumping from natural to supernatural without any merit to do so.

I responded to you about the "invisible" catheter in a previous post that I'm not sure you read yet, please review it and let me know if I understand your problem with it. I simply used the word catheter because they did in the article about the study. If my term or usage is incorrect, then I apologize.

As far as "controlled environments" go, that doesn't somehow prove that it couldn't happen in an uncontrolled environment. See this article here:

http://www.livescience.com/6594-mystery ... ought.html

Stories of people frozen "in nature", and then revived later. The article says that the Japanese man was revived after 23 days, I'd like to point out. Much longer than even 30 hours.

The dog study might very well have been inspired in the first place by these or similar cases and they were simply trying to recreate the scenario that happened in an uncontrolled environment.

But controlled or uncontrolled is beyond the point. If scientists can do it in a controlled environment, then what uncontrolled circumstance would make it absolutely impossible for God to do? Why, if these things are possible on any level for scientists, should any theist ever accept that it is impossible for God? You have no case for making these things impossible, which you would have to show to say that I have not shown it to be possible.

The article didn't happen to mention whether the Japanese chap was hungry or thirsty. I did notice that it must have been a warm spring for his CT to be only 22deg after 23 days asleep.
I'm not convinced sorry.

[neptune1bond]

There's a couple of things here.
I am a non theist but I wasn't aware that non theists had a group or associated with like minded people. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not into group hugs especially with people whose only commonality with me is a disbelief in any and all gods. Doesn't seem like my sort of crowd.
What is it that constitutes condescending, belittling, mocking and ridiculing to your beliefs if an absolute flat out refusal to give those beliefs any credence, isn't?
I give your beliefs in a GOD no credence whatsoever, have I ridiculed your beliefs?

I wasn't meaning what I think that you got out of it.

I would say that football players are a "group" of certain people and most of them associate with that "group". By this, I do not mean that all football players around the world get together at any point to discuss football and play board games. I'm simply meaning that they are all in the "group" called "football players" and associated with "being a football player", as in that the term "football player" describes those people. So I simply meant that you are one of the many people that don't believe in a God and associate with what it is to be a person who doesn't believe in a God. I meant absolutely nothing more than that.

If you simply said,"I cannot agree with your beliefs at all." Then you give no credence without being insulting.

If you say,"believing in God is a story of fairy farts and children's tales and is a very small-minded belief and indicates an inability for logic,reason, or, in most cases, intelligence." or any of that statement in part, then you have indeed gone into the realm of belittling, insulting, and condescending, at least in my opinion and probably any other that finds their beliefs to be intimately sacred and important. If a person did not hold their beliefs to be as such, then they may not be as bothered by it and therefor may not understand the perspective of a person who does, but nonetheless, the behavior is quite poor and unjustifiable in my opinion.

Btw, I'm not trying to say that I consider you personally or anyone else here in particular is intolerant on any level unless they are engaging in the behaviors that I have described. In which case, I just want them to know that we can still stand for our beliefs, completely and utterly, and can treat a person with love and respect and not be insulting or belittling.

[neptune1bond]

The article didn't happen to mention whether the Japanese chap was hungry or thirsty. I did notice that it must have been a warm spring for his CT to be only 22deg after 23 days asleep.
I'm not convinced sorry.

They were saying that the people being deprived of the the oxygen before being frozen might have explain the phenomenon of their core body temperature and ability to be revived and the man's relative hunger or thirst is not important to the article, so why would they mention it?

Either way, that wasn't even my point, whether you believe the article or not. Controlled or uncontrolled, there is no reason to believe that it couldn't happen in natural circumstances. And either way, Jesus was supposed to be in an environment "controlled" by God. If scientists can do it in a lab, then why shouldn't God be able to do it in his (the implied lab of God being the world)?

Gotta go again. I'll try to respond to people when I can.

[Nickman]

The problem here is that you have these dogs being revived in a controlled environment. You have cells being kept alive in a controlled environment. This environment is naturally controlled by humans. You are supposing a possibility that the same can happen without any of the equipment or tools that humans use. You even invented an invisible catheter which you may mean an IV. Im not asking you to prove anything. Im asking for you to realize that you see that you are jumping from natural to supernatural without any merit to do so.

I responded to you about the "invisible" catheter in a previous post that I'm not sure you read yet, please review it and let me know if I understand your problem with it. I simply used the word catheter because they did in the article about the study. If my term or usage is incorrect, then I apologize.

As far as "controlled environments" go, that doesn't somehow prove that it couldn't happen in an uncontrolled environment. See this article here:

http://www.livescience.com/6594-mystery ... ought.html

Stories of people frozen "in nature", and then revived later. The article says that the Japanese man was revived after 23 days, I'd like to point out. Much longer than even 30 hours.

The dog study might very well have been inspired in the first place by these or similar cases and they were simply trying to recreate the scenario that happened in an uncontrolled environment.

But controlled or uncontrolled is beyond the point. If scientists can do it in a controlled environment, then what uncontrolled circumstance would make it absolutely impossible for God to do? Why, if these things are possible on any level for scientists, should any theist ever accept that it is impossible for God? You have no case for making these things impossible, which you would have to show to say that I have not shown it to be possible.

What I gathered from your link and the links within that link is that people died and were resuscitated. All of these scenarios had to do with below freezing temperatures. Below freezing temperatures are the common denominator in these events. Jesus died in a hot climate and humidity. Oxygen deprevation was not a factor. You have people reviving with cold temperatures (which science has been trying to do for years) and your comparing that to a hot temperate revival. The very climate that doesn't revive anyone. You are skimming over the facts of the article you are quoting. Where does it explain that humans can revive from a decomposition conducive environment? That is the type of environment that Jesus' body would have been in.

[Clownboat]

neptune1bond asks:then the point for me is, why should I assume that God couldn't just because atheists find it hard to believe?


assisigirl: 1 simple question for you n1b

When it is a choice between the plausibly fantastic and the probably likely,why not just accept the probably likely? Are you so 'gun ho' on fantasy that you want to be religious? Is life that bad?

Far from it. Life for me is wonderful and God only adds to it for me. Some people would rather live as an atheist, and I have no qualms with that. I personally find God more likely than a cosmic accident and so for me, God happens to be the "probably likely." Why is that so unacceptable?

Why? Because it is one thing to assert a god of sorts as a possibility, but it is not acceptable IMO to then give this god a name, invent a story about how it did what it did and then to condemn people to a hell for not believing said claim about this named "god".

If you do not assign the above to a god concept, then this would not apply to you of course. If you do, then your answer as to why this is unacceptable is answered.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

At what time in the narrative does the 'cunning plan' get formed. You are hardly suggesting that the whole thing was a military operation so therefore you are left with disciples responding to rapidly changing circumstances so here. This is what I do not get with you TOTN.

A disciple, whoever, suddenly gets a eureka moment and says.


''Instead of entombing the body, why don't we hide it, say that Jesus is Risen and we will be on to a good thing''.

I'd sooner believe in a flying Jesus than this. Explain it to me if you can TOTN

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

In Rome, in the year 93, Josephus published his lengthy history of the Jews. While discussing the period in which the Jews of Judaea were governed by the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate, Josephus included the following account:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."
- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 63

This passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, has been widely denounced as an obvious forgery for some time now. The oldest existent copies of Josephus, copies of copies of copies, are only about a thousand years old themselves. Josephus was a pharisees and a Roman citizen. He was NOT a Christian. This overtly sympathetic to Christianity passage could only have been written by a devout Christian.

Testimonium Flavianum
"The Testimonium has been the subject of a great deal of research and debate among scholars, being one of the most discussed passages among all antiquities.[99] Louis Feldman has stated that in the period from 1937 to 1980 at least 87 articles had appeared on the topic, the overwhelming majority of which questioned the total or partial authenticity of the Testimonium.[100] While early scholars considered the Testimonium to be a total forgery, the majority of modern scholars consider it partially authentic, despite some clear Christian interpolations in the text." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Surely you are already aware of this controversy?

[assisigirl]

Goat good question!:assisigirl wrote:

Danmark post 236

Thank you Danmark for your compliments. Does this cover your enquiries?

Antiquities 18: Chapter 3
Josephus mentions the crucifixion of Jesus in passing. The passage is judged authentic by most scholars once the obvious Christian additions (marked here in brackets and italics) are removed:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, [if it be lawful to call him a man;] for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher [of such men as receive the truth with pleasure,] He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. [He was the Christ.] And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; [for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.] And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.


Goat: ...in more modern times, have become to be considered 'partially authentic', in other words, it has been tampered with. The people who say that took out the very christian centric phrases to make it sound more authentic to Josephus.
Now, since it is nearly universally acknowledged to be tampered with, what evidence is there that it actually existed before it was quoted by Eurisibus in the 4th century?


assisigirl:Thank you Goat for your enquiry. Goat, I introduced the Josephus stuff to this thread for general consideration. In a general way, if the yarn, story whatever, was doing the rounds about the guy surviving the crucifixion which probably happened during the reign of Titus in Jerusalem.(66-73CE) then it may have been at least a provisional template for the resurrection narrative. This phenomena happens in a very imprecise way and is difficult to assimilate even when it is a recent occourance. All you need is a smidgen of truth to make a weak soup.
The two recent examples of something like this might be, the story of Elvis dying on the loo, and Bush insisting that there were WOMD in Iraq. I will kick this around later. The coincidences are here for all to see, the name Joseph, the three victims, the pleading to the governor, the survival of one. They seem connected even if it is posthumously. What do you think Goat,Danmark, TOTN, etc I will check out Elvis and WOMD for you in the meantime. There seems to be a pillow fight going on on this thread, Whats that about????

assisigirl to Goat: The Josephus thing has credibility because of the rest of his written work. It can and has been assimilated against same and hence the editing. Apparently Josephus most likely used a 'fact sheet' of early christianity for this account of Jesus as he often did. The source paper is unknown but it is hard to find a motive for lies within the writing of Josephus as he seems sincere in chronicling his times for posterity. Maybe you disagree with this.