Discrediting the Resurrection

[Inigo Montoya]

.

In another thread a member posted:

Im not sure how someone would completely discredit the resurrection, but for me..

Another member said the following:

I don't believe the Resurrection will ever be discredited. I don't think it can be

When asked what would discredit evolution, one popular answer is, ''a rabbit in the pre-cambrian fossil record.''

Falsifiability, then.

Question for those that believe a resurrection occurred:

What evidence would discredit the resurrection story for you?

[Divine Insight]

Question for those that believe a resurrection occurred:

What evidence would discredit the resurrection story for you?

When I was a Christian I believed in the resurrection story. What ultimately discredited it for me was not any sort of logical evidence against it, but rather the simple fact that it made less and less sense to me the more I tried to understand why it was even necessary, or why a God would ever do such a thing in the first place.

For me the resurrection has not been discredited in any physical sense that it couldn't have possibly happened. But it has been thoroughly discredited in any rational sense of sanity.

I am a very strongly scientific person. I fully understand the sciences, the scientific methods, and what science is saying. Even with all that understanding I don't see where science could possibly rule out a supernatural "God" who could indeed easily violate or change any of the rules of science that we currently know.

Not only that, but as we learn more about science we often find that there are actually technological ways of getting around things that would have previously been impossible to occur naturally.

As far as the resurrection of a demigod is concerned, all science can say is that there is no known natural laws that would allow for some a thing to occur naturally. So big deal? The religious claim is NOT that the resurrection occurred naturally. The religious claim is that some supernatural entity intervened in the natural world and caused this totally unnatural event to occur. Therefore the resurrection event itself does not even violate any scientific principles because if a supernatural entity exists (especially one that actually created the universe) then that supernatural entity could surely intervene in the world in ways that defy science.

So science could never disprove the possibility of a supernatural event. In fact, science actually supports the idea that sufficiently technologically-advanced civilization should indeed be able to control nature in ways that would definitely appear to be unnatural.

For example, if we saw something speeding across the universe faster than the speed of light we would immediately suspect that there is some technology behind that event that has found a way to get around the natural speed limit of light.

In any case, for me, the resurrection has been totally discredited, not by science, but by the religion itself.

What kind of a God would pull such a nasty stunt?

Not one that I could respect I'll tell you that for certain. And that's a huge problem with the Bible because the Bible claims that God is both respectable and trustworthy. I wouldn't trust a God who would use such an ignorant and hateful means of trying to control humans. Any God who would make the crucifixion of Jesus the centerpiece of his religion wouldn't be any better than Adolf Hitler, IMHO.

So for me, the resurrection itself is its own discredit. IMHO, it's an ugly stunt that only an ugly God could have conjured up. Especially when there are obviously far better ways of dealing with humans.

This would be a God who is not only inept, but also extremely desperate to think that he would need to stoop this low.

So this religion has proven it's own discredit. It has created a monster God who wouldn't be worthy of anyone's worship. If this God does exist it's actually no better than the Christian Satan.

So this religion has disproved itself to me. No science required.

[bjs]

This is more about the way that history works. History is not a scientific theory and cant be treated as such.

Think of it this way. For you, what would discredit the claim that Abraham Lincoln was once in the position of president of the United States?

[Ancient of Years]

This is more about the way that history works. History is not a scientific theory and cant be treated as such.

Think of it this way. For you, what would discredit the claim that Abraham Lincoln was once in the position of president of the United States?

That no one ever saw Lincoln take the oath of office and that the stories about him being in office are seriously contradictory and involve only people who were close followers of his. And all of this after his assassination.

The actual fact is that there are many records of Lincoln being in office including eyewitness accounts even from those who opposed him. But not a single mention from anyone that he was seen alive in the White House after he was killed.

[bjs]

This is more about the way that history works. History is not a scientific theory and cant be treated as such.

Think of it this way. For you, what would discredit the claim that Abraham Lincoln was once in the position of president of the United States?

That no one ever saw Lincoln take the oath of office and that the stories about him being in office are seriously contradictory and involve only people who were close followers of his. And all of this after his assassination.

The actual fact is that there are many records of Lincoln being in office including eyewitness accounts even from those who opposed him. But not a single mention from anyone that he was seen alive in the White House after he was killed.

If reality was not what it is, then you would believe that Lincoln was never president. Fair enough. I will say the same. If reality was not what it is then I would find it easy to discredit the resurrection.

However, since we have only this reality I will stick with my thought that Inigo quoted in the opening post and say that Im not sure how someone would completely discredit the resurrection. In a similar way, outside of simply ignoring reality I am not sure how someone would discredit the idea that Abraham Lincoln was once in the position of POTUS.

I understand that not everyone accepts the existing evidence for the resurrection. Thats fine. I hope that you understand that this is not the same thing as discrediting the resurrection.

[Zzyzx]

.
If fifty years after Lincoln died some people claimed that he came back to life and appeared to many people, would those claims need to be "discredited" -- or would they be incredible (not credible) on their own merits?

Would "I don't believe that tale" need justification?

[Ancient of Years]

This is more about the way that history works. History is not a scientific theory and cant be treated as such.

Think of it this way. For you, what would discredit the claim that Abraham Lincoln was once in the position of president of the United States?

That no one ever saw Lincoln take the oath of office and that the stories about him being in office are seriously contradictory and involve only people who were close followers of his. And all of this after his assassination.

The actual fact is that there are many records of Lincoln being in office including eyewitness accounts even from those who opposed him. But not a single mention from anyone that he was seen alive in the White House after he was killed.

If reality was not what it is, then you would believe that Lincoln was never president. Fair enough. I will say the same. If reality was not what it is then I would find it easy to discredit the resurrection.

However, since we have only this reality I will stick with my thought that Inigo quoted in the opening post and say that Im not sure how someone would completely discredit the resurrection. In a similar way, outside of simply ignoring reality I am not sure how someone would discredit the idea that Abraham Lincoln was once in the position of POTUS.

I understand that not everyone accepts the existing evidence for the resurrection. Thats fine. I hope that you understand that this is not the same thing as discrediting the resurrection.

I see no reason to give credence to the resurrection. No one saw it actually happen despite the obvious importance of that in lending credibility to the idea of Jesus being special. In none of the stories does anyone see a resurrected Jesus who is not already a follower of Jesus despite the obvious importance of unbiased witnesses to lend credibility to the alleged event. All of the stories vary significantly from each other to the point of contradiction.

If you did not already have faith that it happened and you were hearing about this for the first time, would you consider it credible?

[tam]

In response to the OP:

You would have to prove that there was no Christ, or even that there was no man, Jaheshua (He was not named 'Jesus'). If He did not exist, then He had no disciples, He was not crucified, and He was not resurrected.


Divine Insight, the problem you speak of sounds as though it is to do with the crucifixion, not the resurrection. The resurrection would have great purpose to it, in proving to people that there IS a resurrection, for them and for their loved ones. Quite a powerful sign. Of course, you have to have a death in order to have a resurrection FROM death.



Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

In any case, for me, the resurrection has been totally discredited, not by science, but by the religion itself.

What kind of a God would pull such a nasty stunt?

Let's say the god is insane but magical. We can't disprove magic, but we KNOW that beings with minds can go quite insane.

Not one that I could respect I'll tell you that for certain.

We could pity the psychopath, but wish it would go away. I don't know how I would respect a psychopathic EVIL all powerful god. This is our worst nightmare. Lucky for us, it's most likely to BE nothing but a nightmare.

And that's a huge problem with the Bible because the Bible claims that God is both respectable and trustworthy.

We should expect lies from a psychopathic evil god.

I wouldn't trust a God who would use such an ignorant and hateful means of trying to control humans. Any God who would make the crucifixion of Jesus the centerpiece of his religion wouldn't be any better than Adolf Hitler, IMHO.

Adolph is a pussy cat compared to Yahweh.

So for me, the resurrection itself is its own discredit. IMHO, it's an ugly stunt that only an ugly God could have conjured up. Especially when there are obviously far better ways of dealing with humans.

Right. IF God exists, it has to be almost PERFECTLY evil.

This would be a God who is not only inept, but also extremely desperate to think that he would need to stoop this low.

Perfectly evil and psychopathic.

So this religion has proven it's own discredit. It has created a monster God who wouldn't be worthy of anyone's worship. If this God does exist it's actually no better than the Christian Satan.

Worse, in my evaluation. God CREATED Satan, LET Satan "rebel", the PUNISHED Satan, then allows Satan to seduce humans, then allows Satan to torment humans, and THEN sends humans to be eternally punished by Satan.

If God is all powerful, it's THE MOST evil being that can be imagined... Kindof the immoral ontological counter-argument for the existence of God.

So this religion has disproved itself to me. No science required.

I have to agree.

[Elijah John]

This is more about the way that history works. History is not a scientific theory and cant be treated as such.

Think of it this way. For you, what would discredit the claim that Abraham Lincoln was once in the position of president of the United States?

That no one ever saw Lincoln take the oath of office and that the stories about him being in office are seriously contradictory and involve only people who were close followers of his. And all of this after his assassination.

The actual fact is that there are many records of Lincoln being in office including eyewitness accounts even from those who opposed him. But not a single mention from anyone that he was seen alive in the White House after he was killed.

If reality was not what it is, then you would believe that Lincoln was never president. Fair enough. I will say the same. If reality was not what it is then I would find it easy to discredit the resurrection.

However, since we have only this reality I will stick with my thought that Inigo quoted in the opening post and say that Im not sure how someone would completely discredit the resurrection. In a similar way, outside of simply ignoring reality I am not sure how someone would discredit the idea that Abraham Lincoln was once in the position of POTUS.

I understand that not everyone accepts the existing evidence for the resurrection. Thats fine. I hope that you understand that this is not the same thing as discrediting the resurrection.

If you did not already have faith that it happened and you were hearing about this for the first time, would you consider it credible?

Apparently Peter and Paul's Roman and Greek audicences did, according to the book of Acts.

Then again, in that Mediterranean climate of belief in many god's and supernatural tales, acceptance of such claims as the resurrection may have come easily to them, more easily than to post-industrial era rationalists.

Then there is always the possibility that the accounts in the book of Acts are wrong, or at least exaggerated.