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.

[East of Eden]

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,

What difference would it make if you knew the names of the hundreds of others who saw Jesus if you don't believe the ones who are named?

but more importantly these are not first hand accounts,

Not true, but that aside neither do we have first hand accounts for much of ancient history.

and they are not contemporaneous accounts.

Huh? They are a lot closer to contemporaneous than your opinions today.

Finally, we have zero original documents

Neither do we have original documents for most other ancient histories. The sheer number and closeness to the events of our NT copies compare very well with other ancient 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.

Basically, you discount the supernatural a priori, making this conversation a waste of time. Let me ask you, if Jesus really did walk on water 2,000 years ago what evidence would you expect to see today that would convince you?

[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.

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

The Gospel accounts.

[Dantalion]

[Replying to post 470 by East of Eden]

We actually have a lot of 'original documents' for most 'other' ancient histories.

What evidence would I accept today for supernatural claims of 2000 years ago ?
Nothing, because the supernatural by definition does not exist in the natural world, so scientific evidence for it would by definition be impossible, so anything 'supernatural' would have ZERO effect on/in the natural world, as per definition.

Sometimes, things just don't exist.

[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'

The Gospel accounts.

Which aren't orginal documentation and first hand reports.
That was the claim, you said you had testimony to the contrary of that claim, you have yet to give testimony contrary to the claim that 'there are no original documentations and first hand reports'.

[Danmark]

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.

This makes much sense to me. I'd never considered this event from the point of view of his recovery, but only from the point where he sees the 'light.'

The episode makes more sense when, as you say, he was sick, blind, emotionally vulnerable and is under the care of a Christian who is feeding him more than food and drink.

Then Paul, being the great egoist and filled with the same delusions of grandeur that made him such a zealot in persecuting Christians, has a deep unconscious desire to witness the resurrection himself and elevate his status to that of the eleven.

Well done TOTN.

[Danmark]

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)

This passage, Acts 9, seems completely different in character and style from the symbolic literature we have in early Genesis. There is too much detail about events.
Plus, it's interesting that in verse 7 we have "The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone."
Why include this detail that lends doubt to the miraculous theme if it is ended as symbolic?

Of course, since the men traveling with Saul must have been his fellow Zealots, and certainly not Christians, the story could not include their testimony since they could put the lie to it. I have little doubt they heard 'something,' prob'ly Saul's cry or fall to the ground.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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.

Only if you disregard the fact that there is no original documentation, no first hand reports, in fact there is no mention of any of it historically until more than a quarter of century after it was supposed to have occurred, and the small but troubling fact that all common sense and common experience with the dead indicates quite conclusively that a corpse will not come back to life and then fly away. aglassdarkly claims that it was a unique event, which means one of a kind, but he refuses to provide any actual evidence that this totally preposterous one of a kind event actually occurred either. It's almost as if you were both raised to believe in the undeniable truth of nonsense and now that you have both been confronted with just how absurd and unsustainable the claim is you can't bear to admit the unthinkable truth to yourselves. And of course it certainly is unthinkable that 2,000 years of Christian devotion held by billions of faithful Christians over the centuries could ultimately have been nothing but make believe based on foolish nonsense. The same sort of make believe based on foolish nonsense that you have always routinely known and accepted that the centuries of billions of devoted followers of Islam, or Hinduism have been practicing. Because of course you are secure in the knowledge that your belief is the real TRUE belief, because God loves YOU, and it sucks to be poor foolish THEM.

[East of Eden]

[Replying to post 470 by East of Eden]

We actually have a lot of 'original documents' for most 'other' ancient histories.

Your link doesn't work.

What evidence would I accept today for supernatural claims of 2000 years ago ?
Nothing, because the supernatural by definition does not exist in the natural world, so scientific evidence for it would by definition be impossible, so anything 'supernatural' would have ZERO effect on/in the natural world, as per definition.

So why waste time on these conversations if you have such a close-minded view? I assume you will not in the further ask for evidence. You believe in the uniformity of causes in a closed system, I don't.

IF you witnessed the miracles would you become a Christian?

[East of Eden]

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.

Only if you disregard the fact that there is no original documentation,

As we've discussed, neither do many other ancient historical documents, and about all of them have a much longer time gap between their writing and our earliest copies, and far fewer copies than we have of the NT.

no first hand reports,

The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or those who interviewed eyewitnesses. Both those categories are considered evidence in a court of law.

in fact there is no mention of any of it historically until more than a quarter of century after it was supposed to have occurred,

I'm sure nobody doubted the events the first twenty-five years, these things were set in print only when the eyewitnesses started to pass on.

and the small but troubling fact that all common sense and common experience with the dead indicates quite conclusively that a corpse will not come back to life and then fly away.

As I've said before, only if you disregard all testimony to the contrary, which is circular reasoning. IF God exists, miracles are no big deal, and you can't prove He doesn't exist, or that if He does exist, is powerless to intervene in His creation.

aglassdarkly claims that it was a unique event, which means one of a kind, but he refuses to provide any actual evidence that this totally preposterous one of a kind event actually occurred either. It's almost as if you were both raised to believe in the undeniable truth of nonsense and now that you have both been confronted with just how absurd and unsustainable the claim is you can't bear to admit the unthinkable truth to yourselves. And of course it certainly is unthinkable that 2,000 years of Christian devotion held by billions of faithful Christians over the centuries could ultimately have been nothing but make believe based on foolish nonsense. The same sort of make believe based on foolish nonsense that you have always routinely known and accepted

You have no clue whether or not I was raised as a Christian. Many were not, yet became Christians after looking at the evidence. They're a bit more open-minded than the resident atheists here.

Its been said there has never been a time in history when more people are coming to faith in Christ than today. Between 2000 and 2050, the world population of Christians is expected to increase 50%.

[Danmark]

The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or those who interviewed eyewitnesses. Both those categories are considered evidence in a court of law.

This is just plain false. Assuming you are correct that the gospels were written by those who interviewed eyewitnesses, that is classic hearsay when the interviewer is giving testimony.

I challenge you to demonstrate by ER (evidence rule) or specific case law to support your position. You need to withdraw this claim if you cannot support it.

At the very least you should give your credentials for rendering a legal opinion.

' "Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by
the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered
in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.'
ER 801
Here, the declarant is the 'witness' and the author of the gospel is the one offering the hearsay.
The exceptions to the hearsay rule do not apply in part because the 'testimony' is given decades later.

If you think one of the exceptions applies, state your case.

But even then, you have the problem of admitting the document in the first place.

In any event you should withdraw your claim about what 'would be admitted in a court of law' unless you can support it.