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.

[Danmark]

What is the essence of a country, ie a feeling of belonging and commitment, is it not.

This is a real everyday occurrence, ie pride, patriotism.

Why would a 'kingdom of God' be any different?

I am primarily a citizen of the Kingdom of God, secondarily an American. I'm just passing through here.

Patriotism rises and falls like a fire, and Jesusism can be dormant and rekindled in like fashion. Jesus's death was like a smouldering camp fire until the breeze of 'resurrection' caught it. That's what I am going for against the OP.
Watch me get hammered East of Eden

So all those people had the same 'hallucination' of the Resurrection, then went on to die rather than renounce that hallucination? To quote G.W. Bush, that don't make sense.

Please name 'all those people' and give the dates they published first hand reports of what they 'saw'. Use original documents if you can.

Don't tell me you're going to float the rather new 'the Apostles weren't really persecuted' line? Only one of the disciples died a natural death so I would include them. My comment wasn't about the authorship of the Gospels, but I agree with this link:

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/ ... ecnum=6976

Maybe you know better than Polycarp, Papias and Irenaeus about who wrote them?

What part of my question suggests a focus on persecution? The focus of my question was on your use of the word 'hallucination.' To try to be even clearer for you, I am challenging the idea that anyone 'saw' these events.

BTW, surely you will agree that it is not unusual for people to be persecuted or otherwise receive disapprobation for claiming their hallucinations are 'real.'

Also, it is in the nature of hallucinations that they are perceived as real, so I would expect people to persist and defend their hallucinations with the same vigor as if they were defending the truth.

If you are defending the hallucination theory, what you are saying is that if there had been a good nuerologist for Peter and the others to consult, there never would have been a Christian church. The hallucination theory breaks down on several levels. From Winfried Corduan:

"The problem with this theory is that, in the case of the Resurrection appearances, everything we know about hallucinations is violated. The appearances did not follow the patterns always present in hallucinations, for hallucinations are private and arise out of a state of extreme emotional instability in which the hallucination functions as a sort of wish-fulfillment. What occurred after the Resurrection was very different. The disciples had little trouble accepting Christ's departure; they decided to go back to their fishing. The appearances came as surprises while the disciples were intent on other things. Most importantly, the appearances came to groups of people, with each member seeing the same thing. That is simply not how hallucinations work. Thus the Resurrection appearances could not have been hallucinations."

C.S. Lewis said, "Any theory of hallucination breaks down on the fact (and if it is invention it is the oddest invention that ever entered the mind of man) that on three separate occasions this hallucination was not immediately recognized as Jesus."

John RW Stott wrote, "The disciples were not gullible, but rather cautious, sceptical and 'slow of heart to believe'. They were not susceptible to hallucinations. Nor would strange visions have satisfied them. Their faith was grounded upon the hard facts of verifiable experience."

Hallucinations have never, writes TJ Thorburn, "stimulated people to undertake a work of enormous magnitude, and, while carrying it out, to lead lives of the most rigid and consistent self-denial, and even suffering. In a word....we are constrained to agree with Dr. Sanday, who says, 'No apparition, no mere hallucination of the senses, ever yet moved the world.'"

Again, my question is a challenge to name the witnesses and to tell us if you can, WHEN they published FIRST HAND accounts of what you claim these people saw.

Already answered in my link.

The problem with the lack of witnesses to the resurrection and ascension are virtually admitted by the church sources who felt the need to supplement the ending of Mark.

Many scholars take 16:8 as the original ending and believe the longer ending (16:9-20) was written later by someone else as a summary of Jesus' 'resurrection' appearances and 'miracles' performed by Christians. In this 12-verse passage, the author refers to Jesus' appearances to Mary Magdalene, two disciples, and then the Eleven.
Most scholars, following the approach of the textual critic Bruce Metzger, hold the view that verses 9-20 were not part of the original text.

You might be right on those verses, although some scholars do defend them.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html#dissent

Whatever, it is irrelevant as those ideas are found elsewhere in the NT. Their absence wouldn't change the Chrstian message.

This is your 2d post in a row where you have wasted your time going after something I did not argue. Perhaps you want the easier pickings you think you have in trying to pretend I am talking about persecution and hallucination. I simply said (in essence} that even if they were hallucinations, the persons claiming them would believe them real. I am NOT claiming the 'witnesses' suffered hallucinations.
I am questioning whether anyone actually saw ANY of this.

I am challenging the idea that the 'witnesses' actually saw a 'resurrection' at all, whether a product of wishful thinking, hallucination, illusion, or actual experience.

There are only 3 or four people named who others claim saw Jesus after the resurrection, but more importantly these are not first hand accounts, and they are not contemporaneous accounts. Finally, we have zero original documents that even purport to be 2d or 3d hand accounts. None of these copies of copies of copies are admissible evidence of a a claimed supernatural event.

[aglassdarkly]

So all those people had the same 'hallucination' of the Resurrection, then went on to die rather than renounce that hallucination? To quote G.W. Bush, that don't make sense.

Please name 'all those people' and give the dates they published first hand reports of what they 'saw'. Use original documents if you can.

Does a lack of original documentation and first hand reports mean it didn't happen?

[Dantalion]

So all those people had the same 'hallucination' of the Resurrection, then went on to die rather than renounce that hallucination? To quote G.W. Bush, that don't make sense.

Please name 'all those people' and give the dates they published first hand reports of what they 'saw'. Use original documents if you can.

Does a lack of original documentation and first hand reports mean it didn't happen?

Nope, but it certainly doesn't work in it's favor considering the supernatural nature of the claim

[Danmark]

So all those people had the same 'hallucination' of the Resurrection, then went on to die rather than renounce that hallucination? To quote G.W. Bush, that don't make sense.

Please name 'all those people' and give the dates they published first hand reports of what they 'saw'. Use original documents if you can.

Does a lack of original documentation and first hand reports mean it didn't happen?

Nope, but it certainly doesn't work in it's favor considering the supernatural nature of the claim

Exactly. Even if the event were not one that defies common experience, anonymous sources are suspect. But my primary objection has to do with the rules of evidence and their historic, time tested reliability.

When possible, originals are preferred, and if they exist they are required in lieu of copies. More important is the fact that these recollections were not recorded spontaneously or contemporaneously. And of greater importance still is the fact that even the supposed originals were recorded decades after the alleged events. Finally, we have the issue that all of these documents were produced by, and allegedly quote, groups who had an interest in persuading others of events that defy common experience and scientific understanding.

Whether in courts of law, or among professional historians, we need to separate gossip and propaganda from truth.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Does a lack of original documentation and first hand reports mean it didn't happen?

You know, the lack of original documentation and first hand reports, the fact that no one mentioned it at all for a quarter of a century or so after it was supposed to have occurred, coupled with the fact that it totally defies all common sense and all common experience, then, well, yes it certainly is possible to draw that inference.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Let's bring this over from the other string. I wouldn't want you to miss it.

The subject of this string is the resurrection of Jesus, not resurrections in general. I've responded to what you have said about the resurrection of Jesus. Your questions about a hypothetical missing corpse is unrelated and irrelevant. POST #394

Common experience could be useful, if the common experience were actually relevant to the debate at hand.

Let's look at this situation from a less hypothetical and a more specific point of view. According to Acts, while on the road to Damascus Paul became sick and disoriented. In fact he had symptoms consistent with heat stroke and dehydration, or possibly dysentery which also produces dehydration. At any rate Paul had to be helped into the city by his traveling companions who then left him at the home of a Christian man to be cared for. Sick and delirious, unable to eat or drink for three days, Paul believed after his recovery that during his illness he had experienced a vision of Jesus, who had been executed some years earlier. This experience proved to be life changing for Paul and after his recovery Paul became a confirmed Christian. So we are left to conclude either that Paul, in his delirium, and while being tended to and prayed over by a Christian, hallucinated a vision of Jesus. Or, that Paul actually MET WITH AND TALKED WITH A DEAD MAN.

On the one hand:
(1). Is there any reason to suppose that Paul might have had a hallucination while he was very ill? Lack of water for three days will make even a healthy person hallucinate. Paul had all of the symptoms of being very ill and it's certainly not uncommon for people to hallucinate when they have a high fever. I know personally because it's happened to me a couple of times in my life. And Paul WAS being tended to and prayed over by a Christian at the time of his hallucinations. That certainly would serve to explain a lot. Ooops! ARGUMENT FROM COMMON EXPERIENCE IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE DEBATE AT HAND AND IS THEREFORE FORBIDDEN!

(2). Is there any reason to doubt that Paul had a hallucination while he was very ill? Well Paul certainly seemed to believe that the experience was completely real.

On the other hand:
(3).Is there any reason to suppose that Paul actually had a conversation with Jesus, a man who had been executed some years earlier? Well Paul seemed to have been convinced of it and the author of Acts recorded it as fact.

(4). Is there any reason to doubt that Paul had a conversation with Jesus years after Jesus was executed? Well, all common experience with people who have died... ALTO! ARGUMENT FROM COMMON EXPERIENCE IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE DEBATE AT HAND AND IS THEREFORE VERBOTEN!

By decree arguments (1) and (4) are not relevant and are disallowed. Therefore the only possible conclusion is that Paul actually had a conservation with Jesus years after Jesus was executed because Paul was fully convinced that it occurred.

And once again the unquestionable truth of Christianity has been sustained, praise the lord.

[assisigirl]

TOTN, you have the persistence of a roof drip and I admire you for that.

You bring us to the cusp of the 'seeing and believing' slight of hand.


I am hungry enough to eat a horse.
My brother is built like Fort Knox.


At some stage the Christians are going to have to drop their 'actual happening' insistants. They are going to have to drop the miracles, the ghostly, the 'did not happen' and they are going to have to argue these narratives on the basis of what they were, ie in this case 'a change of heart' akin to the resurrection etc. If they do this they may just have a real belief system. The problem, as you are well aware of TOTN, this is akin to trying to get a gun off a two year old child. He/She is going to shoot something rather than hand it over. Keep trying, I think you are close to a aglassdarkly 'conversion'.

Christians will always insist that Jesus was the Son of God(The Loaded Gun)

There are two real ways to look at the Paul incident.

(1) Someone close to Paul or Paul himself needed 'street cred' in the early church and this could only be achieved by an account of a Jesus encounter.

(2)More likely, the account was never meant to be taken as real and would be understood by all readers to have a 'symbolic' nature

There is no other way to look at this, it is one of these two, a cheat or an attempt to inspire. My bet is on (2) (Saul's resurrection to Paul)

[Tired of the Nonsense]

There are two real ways to look at the Paul incident.

(1) Someone close to Paul or Paul himself needed 'street cred' in the early church and this could only be achieved by an account of a Jesus encounter.

(2)More likely, the account was never meant to be taken as real and would be understood by all readers to have a 'symbolic' nature

There is no other way to look at this, it is one of these two, a cheat or an attempt to inspire. My bet is on (2) (Saul's resurrection to Paul)

Point #1 is an especially good point. So good in fact that I covered it more than 2 weeks ago.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote, from Post #280 (page#28):
There is a long passage in Gospel Luke, chapter 24, verses 13 through 32, which takes place after the crucifixion, where two disciples of Jesus who are traveling to Emmaus encounter a man going in the same direction. The three men spend the day in deep discussion as they travel, and that evening they share a meal. The man suddenly disappears and just as suddenly the disciples realize that they have been talking to Jesus. If a large percentage of the early disciples of Jesus were unaware that the body of Jesus had been relocated and actually believed the story that he had been resurrected, there must have been tremendous pressure to have been among those chosen to have experienced the risen Christ. "Wow, we met this stranger and spent the day with him was he ever a fascinating man to talk to. And you know what, we realized later that he was actually Jesus!" How many of the early disciples may have had a dream about Jesus after his crucifixion and decided that it had been an actual visit from the risen Christ? What I am saying is, how many of these early followers of Jesus came to genuinely believe that they had had a personal experience with the risen Christ, and therefore truly believed in the resurrection? Some years after the execution of Jesus, Paul, lay desperately ill in Damascus while being prayed over by a Christian man. After his recovery Paul believed that Jesus had come to him and spoken to him. You have to wonder, in such a superstitious age, how many of these earliest Christians mistook delusions spawned from delirium, or just plain dreams, for genuine resurrection experiences? I'm suggestion that the "inner circle" of individuals who knew that the body had been relocated, may not necessarily been all that large. Unfortunately, scripture was not written to give us type of information, and the historical record is blank concerning Jesus for the first quarter of a century after he died, leaving the impression at least that nothing especially interesting was occurring. So we are left to speculate.

Keep trying, I think you are close to a aglassdarkly 'conversion'.

Yes I'm quite certain that aglassdarkly will be renouncing Christianity and announcing that he has become an atheist at just about any moment now. Or is it Jesus that is supposed to RETURN at just about any moment now? Well, hey, maybe both things with happen simultaneously at just about any moment now.

[East of Eden]

Does a lack of original documentation and first hand reports mean it didn't happen?

You know, the lack of original documentation and first hand reports, the fact that no one mentioned it at all for a quarter of a century or so after it was supposed to have occurred, coupled with the fact that it totally defies all common sense and all common experience,

Only if you disregard all testimony to the contrary. That is circular reasoning.

[Dantalion]

Does a lack of original documentation and first hand reports mean it didn't happen?

You know, the lack of original documentation and first hand reports, the fact that no one mentioned it at all for a quarter of a century or so after it was supposed to have occurred, coupled with the fact that it totally defies all common sense and all common experience,

Only if you disregard all testimony to the contrary. That is circular reasoning.

please provide 1 example of 'all testimony to the contrary'