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.

[Zzyzx]

.

[Replying to post 115 by Blastcat]

Dude the point is we can know truth. Anyone who says that we CANT know truth has given up knowledge in their world view.

Well, DUDE (it sounds silly to address someone that way, doesn't it? Doing so suggests or implies that one is an experienced cowboy and the recipient is inexperienced).

There are limits on what is known (and perhaps ultimately what can be known / understood by humans).

They have folded to absurdity. Like saying we can't know if Santa Claus in real or not. Certainly we CAN know if Santa is real or not. There is no one flying around in a slay on Christmas Eve giving out presents, there is no one living at the north pole, there is no Santa.

Exactly the same can be said of gods. There is no god flying around granting wishes for believers. There is no evidence that any of the thousands of proposed "gods" are any more real than Santa.

Saying we can't know what is true or not is giving up knowledge. If anyone takes that position they have given up knowledge, but that world view is certainly unlivable because people DO have knowledge. I don't care who you are everyone has some sort of knowledge. You know what the color blue looks like, you know 2+2=4, we know things. Knowledge is a real thing and saying we can't know what truth is is not only a contradiction but it is also unlivable.

Do we know if other planets support life forms? Do we even know how many planets that encompasses?

We know how to put satellites in orbit or send them into space but do not know the best way to do so or even if present means are the best way to travel.

And it isn't because i say something, or because Sye says something, or because Presuppositional Apologetics says something that makes these things true.

Evidence and verifiable results indicate to me what to accept as truthful and accurate – no matter who says what.

A universal truth doesn't matter who says it. For instance, The gravitational constant (approximately 6.674×10^−11 N⋅m2/kg2) isn't true because Newton said it is, its true because that is how the universe is. There is truth in the physics of the universe.

Is the gravitational constant known to be the final answer? Newtonian physics seemed to be THE answer until it was augmented / supplanted by later information.

If someone says "Christianity is true", it doesn't matter what their belief is, if Christianity is true it is irrelevant of there belief or of your belief or mine.

Agreed. And, if Christianity is false it matters not who believes it to be true. Right?

What would make it true is if Christ was the Crucified Jewish Messiah. That is what would make Christianity true which is irrelevant to what you or i believe personally.

Jews say he was not. Christians say he was. That sounds like a matter of opinion – but the Jews seem to have the stronger position since it is THEIR scriptures being considered. The upstarts invented their own God (or part of God or whatever) and grafted him onto the Jewish God, evidently trying to avoid obvious polytheism.

They pushed the old Jewish God into the background and made their new one a centerpiece for the new religion (while trying to hang on to some of the old).

So in the end, if someone says truth cant be know i highly disagree with that. Truth is known.

Okay. Was Jesus the Jewish Messiah – and how is that known with certainty (not just opinion, belief, conjecture, etc).

And we are free to investigate the truths in the world, like if Christianity is true, or if Islam is true, or if Santa Claus is real. We have the ability to investigate truth and saying otherwise, saying we can't investigate truth and we can't know what is true, that is absurdity and those who say that have folded knowledge. They have given up knowledge of truth, which isn't only a contradiction but its also unlivable.

Perhaps what people really say is that everything cannot be known and that many things we think we know are at least partially wrong or incomplete. That does not roadblock a search for more information – but it does acknowledge finite human abilities / mental capacities / experience.

[DefenderofTruth]

.

[Replying to post 115 by Blastcat]

Dude the point is we can know truth. Anyone who says that we CANT know truth has given up knowledge in their world view.

Well, DUDE (it sounds silly to address someone that way, doesn't it? Doing so suggests or implies that one is an experienced cowboy and the recipient is inexperienced).

There are limits on what is known (and perhaps ultimately what can be known / understood by humans).

They have folded to absurdity. Like saying we can't know if Santa Claus in real or not. Certainly we CAN know if Santa is real or not. There is no one flying around in a slay on Christmas Eve giving out presents, there is no one living at the north pole, there is no Santa.

Exactly the same can be said of gods. There is no god flying around granting wishes for believers. There is no evidence that any of the thousands of proposed "gods" are any more real than Santa.

Saying we can't know what is true or not is giving up knowledge. If anyone takes that position they have given up knowledge, but that world view is certainly unlivable because people DO have knowledge. I don't care who you are everyone has some sort of knowledge. You know what the color blue looks like, you know 2+2=4, we know things. Knowledge is a real thing and saying we can't know what truth is is not only a contradiction but it is also unlivable.

Do we know if other planets support life forms? Do we even know how many planets that encompasses?

We know how to put satellites in orbit or send them into space but do not know the best way to do so or even if present means are the best way to travel.

And it isn't because i say something, or because Sye says something, or because Presuppositional Apologetics says something that makes these things true.

Evidence and verifiable results indicate to me what to accept as truthful and accurate – no matter who says what.

A universal truth doesn't matter who says it. For instance, The gravitational constant (approximately 6.674×10^−11 N⋅m2/kg2) isn't true because Newton said it is, its true because that is how the universe is. There is truth in the physics of the universe.

Is the gravitational constant known to be the final answer? Newtonian physics seemed to be THE answer until it was augmented / supplanted by later information.

If someone says "Christianity is true", it doesn't matter what their belief is, if Christianity is true it is irrelevant of there belief or of your belief or mine.

Agreed. And, if Christianity is false it matters not who believes it to be true. Right?

What would make it true is if Christ was the Crucified Jewish Messiah. That is what would make Christianity true which is irrelevant to what you or i believe personally.

Jews say he was not. Christians say he was. That sounds like a matter of opinion – but the Jews seem to have the stronger position since it is THEIR scriptures being considered. The upstarts invented their own God (or part of God or whatever) and grafted him onto the Jewish God, evidently trying to avoid obvious polytheism.

They pushed the old Jewish God into the background and made their new one a centerpiece for the new religion (while trying to hang on to some of the old).

So in the end, if someone says truth cant be know i highly disagree with that. Truth is known.

Okay. Was Jesus the Jewish Messiah – and how is that known with certainty (not just opinion, belief, conjecture, etc).

And we are free to investigate the truths in the world, like if Christianity is true, or if Islam is true, or if Santa Claus is real. We have the ability to investigate truth and saying otherwise, saying we can't investigate truth and we can't know what is true, that is absurdity and those who say that have folded knowledge. They have given up knowledge of truth, which isn't only a contradiction but its also unlivable.

Perhaps what people really say is that everything cannot be known and that many things we think we know are at least partially wrong or incomplete. That does not roadblock a search for more information – but it does acknowledge finite human abilities / mental capacities / experience.

I agree, human knowledge is not only finite, but it is also limited... I like how Sye Ten put it personally. Lets amuse the statement that we know 5% of all available knowledge, ok? So of the 95% we don't know, is it possible it could contradicts the 5% of things we do know? If the knowledge we don't know contradicts the knowledge we do know, It would logically follow that we would need to know everything to know anything. OR! revelation from someone who does... A "Holy God" gives us the ability to "know" things.. You can't make sense of absolute truths... Atheism is unlivable because of truth, and knowledge. You know things, but in a materialistic atheistic view our knowledge is limited and finite, so how do you make sense of the knowledge you do know? For all you know everything you do know might be wrong.

There are limits on what is known (and perhaps ultimately what can be known / understood by humans). ~Z

Perhaps what people really say is that everything cannot be known and that many things we think we know are at least partially wrong or incomplete. That does not roadblock a search for more information – but it does acknowledge finite human abilities / mental capacities / experience.~Z


You can't make sense out of truth with your world view. For all you know, what truth we know now might be wrong! You say it yourself. The truth we do know might be wrong and contradicted... But we all know truths, we know things.. Its ultimately unlivable.

Thats what absurdism subscribes to, its the materialistic atheistic take on knowledge and truth.

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding....in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.


Everyone knows truths yet you yourself just admitted that from your world view you can't make sense out of Truth, but truth came from a Holy God in which your a gifted with. You stole your gifts from God and are playing absurdism.


The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

[Zzyzx]

.

You can't make sense out of truth with your world view.

CORRECTION: YOU can't make sense out of truth with what YOU think is my "worldview."

1) You have no comprehension of my views except to the limited extent I share here.

2) I do not use the term "worldview" applied to myself. I go with what works in the real world and do not wax philosophical or ponder "the meaning of it all" or "why am I here", but leave such pondering to those so inclined (but do not agree to accept their opinions).

3) What works in the real world does not require any supernaturalism or superstition. No invisible, undetectable entities have ever been shown to influence anything in real life (only in mental / emotional exercises)

For all you know, what truth we know now might be wrong! You say it yourself.

Absolutely. Anything we think we know now can be improved upon, proved incorrect, modified by new, more accurate information.

Once "we knew" that the Earth was center of the solar system and universe. Discovery that it is not has not resulted in catastrophe. Life goes on. We once knew that a wood cook stove was the best means of preparing meals. Most of us now discard that "truth" in preference for electric or gas devices.

The truth we do know might be wrong and contradicted... But we all know truths, we know things.. Its ultimately unlivable.

We now "know" that internal combustion engines are best for vehicular power. Almost all of us use them. If / when it turns out that other forms of motive power are preferable or more effective / efficient, have we somehow been proved to be "ultimately unlivable"?

Much of what "everybody knows" is dead wrong or partially wrong. For instance, water does NOT boil at 212 F except under exact, specified conditions – including pure H2O (extremely rare in nature), and atmospheric pressure at exactly 29.92 inches barometric pressure (extremely rare at any place and time – particularly in places above sea level).

Without involving the physics involved, baking and cooking recipes allow extra cooking time at higher altitudes (where atmospheric pressure is significantly lower). Pressure cookers increase the boiling point of water by increasing pressure – and the higher temperatures cook food faster / more thoroughly – not the increased pressure.

Thats what absurdism subscribes to, its the materialistic atheistic take on knowledge and truth.

There is no such thing as "the materialistic atheistic take on knowledge and truth." Try again with less grandiose assumptions.

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding

I would respond with a very strong expletive were it not for decorum and Forum Rules.

The supposed "lord" can't even be shown to be anything more than imaginary – much less a source of wisdom.

If the "lord" grants wisdom and understanding to those who fear or worship "him", that sure doesn't show in these debates.

Those who choose to live their life in fear of a "lord" are welcome to do so – but not to include me in their choice. I have no reason to think that any of the thousands of proposed "gods" are anything more than products of human imagination. If there is sound, verifiable reason, bring it forth.

in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

What, exactly, is the "wisdom and knowledge" conveyed by a wandering rabbi two thousand years ago that has not been provided by others?

What has anyone benefited from that rabbi's life and supposed "wisdom and knowledge?"

A truly gifted teacher with supernatural knowledge would have known to teach 1) wash your hands, not someone's feet, 2) cook food thoroughly to eliminate microorganisms that cause disease – not "sins", 3) drink clean water, 4) avoid sick people when possible.

Everyone knows truths yet you yourself just admitted that from your world view you can't make sense out of Truth,

Correction: I make sense out of what works in the real world. No invisible, undetectable, proposed, supernatural entities required.

but truth came from a Holy God in which your a gifted with. You stole your gifts from God and are playing absurdism.

Correction: No "gods" gifted me anything and I took nothing from any such imaginary characters.

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.]

Fearing invisible, undetectable "gods" seems counter productive to gaining knowledge and wisdom. Following the teachings of ancient religion followers or fanatics does not contribute to knowledge or wisdom (and may be regressive or counter-productive).

[DefenderofTruth]

[Replying to post 123 by Zzyzx]

Well, your response is all over the place, there isn't much to debate and i don't wish to dissect it for the reason stated

for example, quotes like

There is no such thing as "the materialistic atheistic take on knowledge and truth." Try again with less grandiose assumptions. ~Z, is just wrong, i don't know why you want to say the semantics of the words i use are meaningless. There absolutely is materialist atheism, here is an atheist website (atheism.about.com) that goes into defining it.
http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophys ... ialism.htm


You talked about some human knowledge... But still the fact remains, human knowledge is limited and finite, and you basically admitted that we can't know truth. I am going off the words you speak in here on DC&R and you say

1) You have no comprehension of my views except to the limited extent I share here.

2) I do not use the term "worldview" applied to myself. I go with what works in the real world and do not wax philosophical or ponder "the meaning of it all" or "why am I here", but leave such pondering to those so inclined (but do not agree to accept their opinions).

3) What works in the real world does not require any supernaturalism or superstition. No invisible, undetectable entities have ever been shown to influence anything in real life (only in mental / emotional exercises)

Thats fine if you agree with yourself, that truth can't be completely known and that "I go with what works in the real world and do not wax philosophical or ponder "the meaning of it all" or "why am I here", but leave such pondering to those so inclined (but do not agree to accept their opinions)."~Z... But this is a debate in which people debate knowledge of one thing or another, so your quote is more or less throwing your hands up and saying "i don't know", but these questions are relevant when debating knowledge and wisdom.

And by the way, "invisible, undetectable entities", or in other words "God" is known by things made. That is actually a quote straight out of Romans 1. We know God through the temple in which Christ is the cornerstone. So when you say "No invisible, undetectable entities have ever been shown to influence anything in real life"~Z. I don't know what your basing that off of, looking for god in your backyard or something? But we know God through Gods temple, which has been made known to us.

Truth is also something that is made known to us, and you may not think you know truth (or at lest debate that you don't know truth) but you really do know truth and thats the problem. Thats why materialistic atheism, which is a real thing, is unlivable... Even though you claim

I go with what works in the real world and do not wax philosophical or ponder "the meaning of it all" or "why am I here", but leave such pondering to those so inclined (but do not agree to accept their opinions). ~Z, you are here debating this kind of stuff...

Or i guess your position is you are debating against this kind of stuff, but hold no solutions to these questions...

[Zzyzx]

.

There is no such thing as "the materialistic atheistic take on knowledge and truth." Try again with less grandiose assumptions.

is just wrong, i don't know why you want to say the semantics of the words i use are meaningless. There absolutely is materialist atheism, here is an atheist website (atheism.about.com) that goes into defining it.
http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophys ... ialism.htm

From the article you cite:

Materialism often entails atheism unless a person believes in a purely physical god, but atheism does not entail materialism. It may be hard to believe in a god in a materialistic philosophy, but an atheistic philosophy need not be materialistic.

It often pays to read all the way to the end of an article.

SOME Atheists are materialistic. SOME are not. Some don't care one way or the other. "I don't believe your god tales" does not require anything further.

It might also be prudent to notice that I do not affiliate with Atheism but self-identify as a Non-Theist (which avoids the baggage often attached to the former).

You talked about some human knowledge... But still the fact remains, human knowledge is limited and finite, and you basically admitted that we can't know truth.

Correction: I made no such "admission." I maintain that a great deal of what we know is "truth." We use accurate (truthful) information to build computers and put satellites in orbit, for instance. Because we do not claim to have all the answers or claim that all the answers we do have are 100% accurate does not indicate that we lack "truth."

Those who claim to know TRUTH are typically religionists expressing opinions about supernaturalism that cannot be shown to be anything more than products of human imagination. The TRUTH claimed by religionists typically refers to knowing about their favorite gods -- based upon opinions and stories told by others (especially if they are ancient tales).

Accurate information builds modern medicine (imperfect though it may still be) while supernaturalism offers faith healing (which cannot be shown to be effective at all beyond placebo effect).

"I go with what works in the real world and do not wax philosophical or ponder "the meaning of it all" or "why am I here", but leave such pondering to those so inclined (but do not agree to accept their opinions)

But this is a debate in which people debate knowledge of one thing or another, so your quote is more or less throwing your hands up and saying "i don't know", but these questions are relevant when debating knowledge and wisdom.

Is knowledge of "the meaning of it all" or "why am I here?" required in these debates? I seem to have done reasonably well without it. Perhaps that is because I don't waste time pondering what I consider silly questions – but go with what works in the real world.

And by the way, "invisible, undetectable entities", or in other words "God" is known by things made. That is actually a quote straight out of Romans 1.

1) It has not been demonstrated that any gods made anything

2) Even if a "god" did make something, there is no assurance that it is the Bible God (which is just one of thousands proposed, worshiped, feared, loved by humans).

3) Quotations from the Bible are not admissible as proof of truth (according to Forum Rules and Guidelines).

No invisible, undetectable entities have ever been shown to influence anything in real life

I don't know what your basing that off of,

Realism. If there is evidence that invisible, undetectable entities have influenced anything in real life, kindly bring it forth.

looking for god in your backyard or something? But we know God through Gods temple, which has been made known to us.

Okay. Where is a temple that a god made that imparts knowledge?

Truth is also something that is made known to us,

How, exactly, is truth "made known to us?" By whom? How is that demonstrated?

and you may not think you know truth (or at lest debate that you don't know truth) but you really do know truth and thats the problem.

Does belief in gods impart capacity for reading minds?

Thats why materialistic atheism, which is a real thing, is unlivable... Even though you claim

What works in the real world has been (and continues to be) a very successful approach to life for seventy-five years. Now you tell me it (or something you imagine) is "unlivable."

I go with what works in the real world and do not wax philosophical or ponder "the meaning of it all" or "why am I here", but leave such pondering to those so inclined (but do not agree to accept their opinions).

you are here debating this kind of stuff...

Notice that I do not debate "the meaning of it all" or "why am I here" or "how did the universe originate" or "how did life begin."

Knowledge of such things (or lack thereof) has no application to my life. I much prefer to know how to weld, do woodworking, maintain my property and vehicles, grow a garden over pondering the theoretical and hypothetical (or "philosophical").

It works for me – probably doesn't for others. Real world knowledge, experience and reasoning from evidence appears to apply rather well to debate against supernaturalism.

[FarWanderer]

But if Christianity is true, then God is made known to us. A Holy God is made known to us. Thats what it meant when Jesus said, "I am the light", that truth can be known to humanity.

How do you know this is true? By presupposition of course. But anything can be presupposed. I can presuppose Christianity is false, and you'd call it irrational. Why? Because you presuppose it to be true!

To function, one only needs to presuppose that one's own cognition and sensory experience have some ability to make sense of the world. Presuppositions as to why they are able to do that are not necessary.

That is what it means, it means truth is able to be made know. If we played with the idea of the Matrix then who's to say that any truth can be made known? If the Matrix is true then NOBODY knows truth.. It would be hidden away from us if that was true, but that goes against the teaching of a "Holy God".

I disagree entirely. We would know something about the matrix we live in. We just wouldn't know it was a matrix. If I play baseball one day, and the next day I find out I've been in the matrix the whole time, would "I played baseball yesterday" be a false statement? Of course it's not that simple. It's true in one sense and false in another.

"Truth", you see, is contextual to the axioms you are working from.

Thats what Presuppositional Apologetics is all about. You say that which is unknown might be the real truth, you can't even make sense of "truth" in that world view. We say truth starts with God, and truth is known by all. If there is absolute truth, Presuppositional Apologetics says that is proof that God exists.

"Absolute" truth certainly exists, but only in closed logical systems. Statements that incorporate external objects never contain "absolute" truth, if only because there is always a degree of imperfection in language's representation of objects.

If people can agree that there is absolute truths then your world view doesn't make sense, like the possibility of the matrix. But even the materialistic atheist usually admit there is truth, and absolute truth, but if we are just matter in motion and nothing more then stardust than how would you make sense of truth, like objective moral truth's?

Moral "truths" are difficult because they incorporate both subjective and objective aspects.

Presuppositional Apologetics says if there is truth in the world, and it is able to be made know, then that is proof God exists.

Which simply doesn't follow in any way.

actually this street preacher, and Christian debater, Sye Ten like to debate this topic.

Yes I know of him quite well. I learned a lot as a result of discovering him.

[Bust Nak]

Ok, so people reject objective morality? Its based on subjectiveness?

Yes, many do, dare I say even most atheists reject objective morality? That's certainly the impression I get from the internet atheists.

Then anyones subjective reality would be valid?

Firstly, a dictionary tells me "valid" means sound basis in logic or fact, reasonable or cogent. Some opinion are based in logic or fact, others are just raw feelings. Merely stating that morality is a matter of opinion does not mean all opinion are based in logic.

Seconly, I would also say there is one reality, and reality is objective. Subjective opinion exists as part of that reality and I wouldn't call anything "subjective reality."

Like Hitlers? Who sure used "rationality" to justify killing humans who were deemed subhuman, or less human then others. Thats why he killed people with mental illnesses and cognitive disorders, as well as the Jewish people, black people, homosexuals.

Are you trying to tell me that Hitler opinion that it was morally right to kill those people, was soundly based on logic or fact, is reasonable or cogent? I would argue strongly against that. That you put "rationality" in quotes tells me you already know the answer.

Shoot if morality is subjective, then maybe i can win this debate by hacking the website and banning all those who debate against me. Why can't i win the debate that way?

Because it's not logical or based on fact, nor reasonable nor cogent? Why are you equating subjectivism with "everything is logical!" anyway?

Or do i have to accept objective morality?

No, not at all. There seemed to some deep misconception about what subjectivism means. Consider beauty or food taste. Subjectivism is not hard to understand. Unless I am very much mistaken, you operate under subjectivism everyday. Had it ever occur to you to ask if anyone uses logic to decide who is cute? Have you ever considered if it is valid to like vanilla ice-cream over chocolate ice-cream? There is nothing odd with subjectivism, you know it instinctively. Now apply what you know about beauty to morality and you'll see what moral subjectivists actually believe.

I think truths would presuppose rationality. It isn't our rationality that creates truths, it is instead from truths that our rationality can understand those truths. Truth would be subjective to our rationality, but truth isn't subjective to an individuals rationality, truth is universal. The question is, is there absolute truths outside of our own rationality? Id say absolutely, our rationality doesn't create truth, it is truths that our rationality can perceive. The question is where does truth come from? Not from rationality of humans, and not from humans at all for that matter.

You are telling me what you believe, that's fine in itself but it's not an argument against a materialistic view on truths.

...You can't make sense out of truth with your world view.

Oh, but we can. Watch as I demonstrate: What is truth? A set of statements that correspond to reality. Where does truth come from? Observation of objective reality. It presupposes reality, minds and senses to link the two. No supernatural entities required.