Is historical knowledge relevant to Q of Resurrection?

[liamconnor]

I have often talked of assessing the data for the resurrection of Jesus against the relevant backgrounds, namely 2nd T. Judaism and 1st c. Rome.

Q for D.

Does a person need to know even a single fact about either backgrounds before rationally determining that the resurrection did not occur?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

Nope, resurrection is impossible, even for an all-powerful entity.
This was shown in other OPs. But basically undoing the damage of three days death would require doing more damage to surrounding tissues, than were repaired.

[Divine Insight]

I have often talked of assessing the data for the resurrection of Jesus against the relevant backgrounds, namely 2nd T. Judaism and 1st c. Rome.

Q for D.

Does a person need to know even a single fact about either backgrounds before rationally determining that the resurrection did not occur?

If there is a "story" about a resurrection why wouldn't it be important know about the facts of the complete story along with some understanding of the people who supposedly wrote it?

Is there any claim that the resurrection of this man has anything do to with your eternal fate? If so, then shouldn't every jot and tittle of that story then become extremely important to you?

Why would you ignore the facts and background of a story that claims that if you don't believe in this resurrected man you'll be damned for eternity?

For me this would make the story extremely important. I would look into it in extreme detail. And so I did. And I found it to have no credibility at all. It contains extreme contradictions and cannot possibly be true. That's my conclusion.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

It seems to me if one pre-assumes there is not God and comes from the bias that the natural world is all there is, there can be no discussion of God resurrecting anything; an atheist by definition assumes by definition assumes all miracles are impossible, the details are irrelevant.

If one assumes a omnipotent God does (or can) exist then as with all miracles it is unreasonable to expect personal evidence of its happening in order to believe it. By definition a miralcle defys all laws of science and cannot be reproduced . It is ludecrous to argue "A miracle cannot have happened since that would be "unscientific"", this is much like arguing that car could not be red because that would mean it's red, not green. Those with critical thinking skills can do one thing in the face of reports of a miracle and that is, not to ask for a demonstration or point out that such a thing is rare or even unique, in the human experience of things but to analyse the report itself*. (To argue that a miracle couldn't have happened because it only happened once is like arguing that Michelangelo could not have carved his statue of David because he only made one. Even if it could be established that the action was unique, there is no logical reason to conclude that something must be repeated to be true (otherwise the only murders in prison would be serial killers).

The only thing to do is to analyse the reliability of those reporting and decide if the details sound authentic*. I have posted my earlier post on this topic below.


Extra ordinary evidence?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 70#p330870

Further Reading: Are Miracles Really Possible? Three Common Objections
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2012562

* Analysis of the reporting might ask the following:

- Does the report show logical order? Can the event be placed in a historical context? (fables tend to be historically vague "Once upon a time, in a land far far away...")
- Are the surrounding details convincing? (Are the historical or cultural details accurate)
- Are there any contradictions in the story that cannot be resolved?
- Does the reporter show evidence they are personally convinced of what they are saying?
- Were there several independent witnesses of the event?
- Does anything in the reporting (or the witness testimonies) demonstrate mental or emotional disfunction?
- Do those reported as witnessing the event react in a logical way?
- Is the miracle in character with the nature of the god(s) it is attributed to?

For more information please go to other posts related to...

FAITH, TRUTH and ...RELIGION

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]
Nope, resurrection is impossible, even for an all-powerful entity.

How so?

This was shown in other OPs.

Can you link them?

But basically undoing the damage of three days death would require doing more damage to surrounding tissues, than were repaired.

Why would it require doing damage to surrounding tissue?

[Justin108]

If one assumes God does (or can) exist then as with all miracles it is unreasonable to expect personal evidence of its happening in order to believe it.

What's unreasonable about it? Just because something is possible doesn't mean it happened. Even if we assume God exists, it is highly unlikely that he intervened this way as he is not known to intervene. If I told you God turned a jar of pickles into gold for me the other day, you would probably not believe me. God would certainly be able to do this, but he has never done anything like this before. It is uncharacteristic of God to turn pickles into gold and it is uncharacteristic of God to bring people back from the dead.

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence.

Not really. Granted, if *I* claim I can jump over the empire state building in an single leap, I would do well to demonstrate this by at least jumping over the Brooklyn bridge, but the implicaton of this statement -- that historical records of those that claim to have witnesses "extraordinary" events, must somehow produce an extraordinary amount of evidence to prove this -- is illogical if those events were supernatural in nature.

So you would readily believe any historic claim as long as the claim was supernatural in nature? Do you believe the historic claim that Muhammad rode on a flying horse?

[JehovahsWitness]

It is uncharacteristic of God to bring people back from the dead.

Are you suggesting that the God of the bible that was not (previous to the ressurection of Jesus) reported as empowering resurrections? Are there not 8 resurrections reported in the bible six of which were prior to the resurrection of Jesus?

What scripturally leads you to suggest bringing people back from the dead is "uncharacteristic" for the God of the bible?

[Justin108]

It is uncharacteristic of God to bring people back from the dead.

Are you suggesting that the God of the bible that was not (previous to the ressurection of Jesus) reported as empowering resurrections? Are there not 8 resurrections reported in the bible six of which were prior to the resurrection of Jesus?

Whether these reported resurrections actually happened is exactly what's being investigated. If you start your investigation by assuming that these reports all happened then your reasoning becomes circular.

And I never said I was talking about the God of the Bible. In post 4, you simply said "if one assumes God does (or can) exist then as with all miracles it is unreasonable to expect personal evidence of its happening in order to believe it." You never specified which God. If you did mean the God of the Bible, then again your argument becomes circular.

- If the God of the Bible exists, then everything in the Bible is true
- If everything in the Bible is true, then the resurrection is also true

So without the assumption that the Bible is true, what reason would there to believe the resurrection happened? I will grant you the assumption that some sort of God exists, but not that this God is necessarily the same God as the God of the Bible.

What scripturally leads you to suggest bringing people back from the dead is "uncharacteristic" for the God of the bible?

I am not operating under the assumption that scripture is true, merely that some sort of God exists.

If I operated under the assumption that scripture is true, then the argument would be so much simpler: "The Bible says Jesus came back from the dead, therefore Jesus came back from the dead"

[JehovahsWitness]

It is uncharacteristic of God to bring people back from the dead.

Are you suggesting that the God of the bible that was not (previous to the ressurection of Jesus) reported as empowering resurrections? Are there not 8 resurrections reported in the bible six of which were prior to the resurrection of Jesus?

Whether these reported resurrections actually happened is exactly what's being investigated.

The point I am addressing is the point you raised ie It is {quote} " uncharacteristic of God to bring people back from the dead". This implies that even the first resurrection would be "uncharacteristic" why do you view such an action as such? Do you know why you said this?


JW

[Justin108]

It is uncharacteristic of God to bring people back from the dead.

Are you suggesting that the God of the bible that was not (previous to the ressurection of Jesus) reported as empowering resurrections? Are there not 8 resurrections reported in the bible six of which were prior to the resurrection of Jesus?

Whether these reported resurrections actually happened is exactly what's being investigated.

The point I am addressing is the point you raised ie It is {quote} " uncharacteristic of God to bring people back from the dead". This implies that even the first resurrection would be "uncharacteristic" why do you view such an action as such? Do you know why you said this?


JW

If it was characteristic of God to bring people back from the dead, it would be a regular occurrence.


characteristic
karktrstk/
adjective
1.
typical of a particular person, place, or thing.
"he began with a characteristic attack on extremism"
synonyms: typical, usual, normal, predictable, habitual, in character;

Is resurrection something that you would describe as usual or normal?