Let's cut to the chase: did the resurrection happen?

[Haven]

Recently, there have been a lot of threads on topics related to the resurrection of Jesus (empty tomb, supernaturalism vs. naturalism, historical records, and so on). I think it may be helpful to discuss the big picture: did the resurrection of Jesus happen or not? This thread is the place to discuss it: offer any argument for or against the resurrection. Hopefully this will be a good discussion.

Debate question: Was Jesus resurrected from the dead?

_________
Thread rules:
1) Offer evidence or logical argument. Simply providing Bible quotes isn't sufficient.
2) Faith, while valid on a personal level, isn't evidence for a claim. Provide empirical evidence from history, textual criticism, physics, and so on, not simply statements of faith.
3) Be kind to each other. All of us, regardless of our religious position, are conscious beings deserving of respect and civility.

[DefenderofTruth]

[Replying to post 67 by DefenderofTruth]

But you were raised in a country where 90% of the population was "Christian" right? If you had been raised in a country where 90% of the population professed Islam, do you still think you would be Christian?

Ok this is a genetic fallacy, first of all, and i told you nonbelievers has bigger influence on me then any Christians... How can you just ignore that and still talk about indoctrination?

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 71 by DefenderofTruth]

I'm not committing any fallacies because I'm not putting forth an argument. I am asking you questions. You don't have to respond if it makes you uncomfortable or causes you to whine about fallacies.

I had a similar experience to you, but am quite certain that had I been raised in a country where the "deity-du jour" had been Allah, I would have been saying the same things for Islam as I did for Christianity.

[DefenderofTruth]

[Replying to post 71 by DefenderofTruth]

I'm not committing any fallacies because I'm not putting forth an argument. I am asking you questions. You don't have to respond if it makes you uncomfortable or causes you to whine about fallacies.

I had a similar experience to you, but am quite certain that had I been raised in a country where the "deity-du jour" had been Allah, I would have been saying the same things for Islam as I did for Christianity.

That its not true?

Personally i think this is undermining a personal God... "If you weren't you, would you still believe in God"?

Even metaphysical philosophical reasoning states there is no proof to an individual that there are other minds then their own. We simply have to accept that as truth.. Personal experiences hold some of the highest truths in philosophy.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 70 by DefenderofTruth]

What part of "I do not accept Youtube videos as evidence in debate" is difficult to understand?

Perhaps a person "experiencing" a supernatural entity should consult Youtube videos for verification?

For the record: I do not watch videos (with extremely rare exceptions), television, movies (no exceptions) and do not read fiction and fantasy. My information comes from different sources.

Those who obtain their information from the entertainment realm are welcome to do so, but not to include me in their predilections.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 73 by DefenderofTruth]

You may have different opinions about God than most of your fellow believers in Christ, but you came to the conclusion that the "correct" God was the one described I the book held most precious by your culture. You found the most meaning in the person of Jesus, the most revered person of your culture. You might redefine those beings and recharqcterize them, but you are still discussing Jehovah and Christ as life affirming.

The difference between you and I remains our levels of surprise at the result. I'm not nearly as surprised as you are and thus I place less significance on your revelations.

[DefenderofTruth]

.
[Replying to post 70 by DefenderofTruth]

What part of "I do not accept Youtube videos as evidence in debate" is difficult to understand?

Perhaps a person "experiencing" a supernatural entity should consult Youtube videos for verification?

For the record: I do not watch videos (with extremely rare exceptions), television, movies (no exceptions) and do not read fiction and fantasy. My information comes from different sources.

Those who obtain their information from the entertainment realm are welcome to do so, but not to include me in their predilections.

I see know problem exploring any piece of information that can be made known. TV sparked the Civil Rights movement, but you apparently see it has no value.. It also sparked change in communist China.. Internet sites like Wikileal sparked the Arab spring and the Arab revolutions.

Youtube can have just as much value as a documentary book, maybe arguably more value. In fact the video i linked is a brief description of a nonfictional book.

I don't see the problem with evaluating any piece of information. From the original greek and hebrew manuscripts of the Bible to youtube videos, its all just information... But like i said i spelled it out to you in post 61, you can respond to that or you can drop the subject.

[Zzyzx]

.

I see know problem exploring any piece of information that can be made known. TV sparked the Civil Rights movement, but you apparently see it has no value.

Where does "no value" come from?

I prefer to obtain information from reading (multiple diverse sources worldwide) and/or from personal experience in the real world. I do not seek entertainment through watching others perform and do not learn science or theology from television.

Youtube can have just as much value as a documentary book, maybe arguably more value.

Those who prefer to use Youtube as their information source are welcome to do so. I do not choose to join them.

In fact the video i linked is a brief description of a nonfictional book.

Someone describing a book does not constitute credible evidence in debate -- whether in video form or other.

[Hamsaka]

.
[Replying to post 70 by DefenderofTruth]

What part of "I do not accept Youtube videos as evidence in debate" is difficult to understand?

Perhaps a person "experiencing" a supernatural entity should consult Youtube videos for verification?

For the record: I do not watch videos (with extremely rare exceptions), television, movies (no exceptions) and do not read fiction and fantasy. My information comes from different sources.

Those who obtain their information from the entertainment realm are welcome to do so, but not to include me in their predilections.

I see know problem exploring any piece of information that can be made known. TV sparked the Civil Rights movement, but you apparently see it has no value.. It also sparked change in communist China.. Internet sites like Wikileal sparked the Arab spring and the Arab revolutions.

Youtube can have just as much value as a documentary book, maybe arguably more value. In fact the video i linked is a brief description of a nonfictional book.

I don't see the problem with evaluating any piece of information. From the original greek and hebrew manuscripts of the Bible to youtube videos, its all just information... But like i said i spelled it out to you in post 61, you can respond to that or you can drop the subject.

It's good to evaluate all the available information. It's even better to evaluate information that disagrees with what you believe, as a gesture toward your commitment to knowing the truth (as much as any of us can). Skeptics examining Christian literature, and vice versa. There's no obligation to do this, of course, in one's personal life, but it is expected of you (the generic) on a debate forum.

Do you agree that there are some sources of information that are more trustworthy than others? Why would some be more trustworthy than others?

[DefenderofTruth]

.

I see know problem exploring any piece of information that can be made known. TV sparked the Civil Rights movement, but you apparently see it has no value.

Where does "no value" come from?

I prefer to obtain information from reading (multiple diverse sources worldwide) and/or from personal experience in the real world. I do not seek entertainment through watching others perform and do not learn science or theology from television.

Youtube can have just as much value as a documentary book, maybe arguably more value.

Those who prefer to use Youtube as their information source are welcome to do so. I do not choose to join them.

In fact the video i linked is a brief description of a nonfictional book.

Someone describing a book does not constitute credible evidence in debate -- whether in video form or other.

Ya i don't care to debate you on the subject of youtube. let it go...

[DefenderofTruth]

.
[Replying to post 70 by DefenderofTruth]

What part of "I do not accept Youtube videos as evidence in debate" is difficult to understand?

Perhaps a person "experiencing" a supernatural entity should consult Youtube videos for verification?

For the record: I do not watch videos (with extremely rare exceptions), television, movies (no exceptions) and do not read fiction and fantasy. My information comes from different sources.

Those who obtain their information from the entertainment realm are welcome to do so, but not to include me in their predilections.

I see know problem exploring any piece of information that can be made known. TV sparked the Civil Rights movement, but you apparently see it has no value.. It also sparked change in communist China.. Internet sites like Wikileal sparked the Arab spring and the Arab revolutions.

Youtube can have just as much value as a documentary book, maybe arguably more value. In fact the video i linked is a brief description of a nonfictional book.

I don't see the problem with evaluating any piece of information. From the original greek and hebrew manuscripts of the Bible to youtube videos, its all just information... But like i said i spelled it out to you in post 61, you can respond to that or you can drop the subject.

It's good to evaluate all the available information. It's even better to evaluate information that disagrees with what you believe, as a gesture toward your commitment to knowing the truth (as much as any of us can). Skeptics examining Christian literature, and vice versa. There's no obligation to do this, of course, in one's personal life, but it is expected of you (the generic) on a debate forum.

Do you agree that there are some sources of information that are more trustworthy than others? Why would some be more trustworthy than others?

Thats what a debate is. "evaluating information that disagrees with what you believe"... right?

As far as "some sources of information that are more trustworthy than others? Why would some be more trustworthy than others?" ~ Hamsaka

Because that how life works... right? You aren't going to look for solutions to morality, or how societies are suppose to operate by reading mein kampf, are you? Even though some people will.


the statement doesn't really address any of the issues, I think what you are assuming that all religious literature is equal in merit, i simply disagree with that. I don't care what anyone says to the contrary, the flying spaghetti monster is not comparable in merit to Christ. It was formed, pulled out of thin air, purely to exploit loop holes in Kansas law and is used to mock the idea of Faith. That is nothing like the fundamental beliefs of Christianity, it isn't comparable.

That may be a bit of an extreme example, at least i would hope you see it as extreme contrast, but how is that different then evaluating any system of belief? Obviously Christianity is different then Islam. I see it all to much that atheist group these beliefs together, saying "well if you don't believe in one why would you believe in another?". Because they all have different statements about God. They are different, thats why. They aren't the same thing.

I said it before, i don't see how different competing religions that attempt to explain God, are anything different then competing theories in science. Like how life came to be. Wether it is by a step by step natural process with RNA, directed panspermia, or a bolt of lightning jump starting life... These are competing theories of how life started. I don't know why you would take God to be different. You would need to evaluate them separately and come to conclusions based on there individual claims.