Did Jesus really rise from the dead?

[polonius]

From several historical writings (Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius) we learn that a an itinerant preacher named Jesus was executed about 30 AD by Pontius Pilate for insurrection. (Claiming to be king of the Jews).

Starting with Paul who wasn't a witness to the crucifixion writing 25 years later, we hear that Jesus was seen alive by 500 people (before his "Ascension"). Unfortunately, Paul wrote this to the Corinthians 800 miles from Jerusalem who who would not be expected to have first hand knowledge. He did not write to any Romans.

But curiously although Jerusalem at that time had many literate Hebrews, Romans, Greeks, and others, and this fantastic story would have been widely spread, there are no written reports about it. Nor is this alleged appearance to 500 reported in any of the Gospels.

The Gospels were written by non-witnesses between 70 and 95 AD.

Is Paul's really a fictional story that caught on later? The purported ascension made verification impossible. Maybe that's why it had to be written as it was.

[JJ50]

Once a person dies they stay dead, Jesus included.

[Tcg]

Once a person dies they stay dead, Jesus included.

Science can't used to examine or even confirm the existence of the supernatural, this very well may be because science is only useful for examining that which actually exists.


Science is very good for examining and explaining physical things, you know, things that do exist. And as you have stated, physical things that die, stay dead. If Jesus died on a cross two thousand or so years ago, there is no scientific reason to conclude he isn't dead now.


Mythology of course can evaluate, examine and confirm the non-existent. In that world, perhaps Jesus is still kicking about in the imagination of his followers.




Tcg

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 132 by Tcg]

Do you believe that existent things must be physical? Do you believe that it is either science or myth and nothing else? If so, do you have any support for those beliefs?

[John Human]

[snip]But curiously although Jerusalem at that time had many literate Hebrews, Romans, Greeks, and others, and this fantastic story would have been widely spread, there are no written reports about it. Nor is this alleged appearance to 500 reported in any of the Gospels.

The Gospels were written by non-witnesses between 70 and 95 AD.

Is Paul's really a fictional story that caught on later? [snip]

As I shared on another thread:

Things that Jesus (as recorded in the Bible) never said:

1. Jesus never said that we were all condemned to eternal damnation because of our participation in original sin.

2. Jesus never said that he was God, born of a virgin who was impregnated by the Holy Spirit.

3. Jesus never said that his divine (see #2 above) sacrifice on the cross served as atonement for the sins of those who believed in him, offering escape from eternal damnation (see #1 above).

These three interlocking and mutually supporting doctrines were added by Paul and others after Jesus Christ came and went, creating a new religion that was well-fitted to the larger Greco-Roman world, but sacrilege within Jewish religious thought. (Hence the Dead Sea Scrolls' condemnation of Paul as the "Splutterer of Lies.")
--

With that said, I am open to the thought that Paul and his associates were inspired to create a doctrinal "package wrapping" to preserve the essence of Jesus's teaching -- his two great commandments. Religion in the Mediterranean world was in a sorry state, and the new Hebrew hybrid offered salvation to Greco-Roman religious culture.

[John Human]

Science is very good for examining and explaining physical things, you know, things that do exist.

Tcg seems to have made the epistemological error of conflating "existence" with "accessible to the five bodily sense perceptions."

[Zzyzx]

.

Science is very good for examining and explaining physical things, you know, things that do exist.

Tcg seems to have made the epistemological error of conflating "existence" with "accessible to the five bodily sense perceptions."

I disagree with contention that error of conflating "existence" with "accessible to the five bodily sense perceptions."

Many things that are not accessible to the five bodily sense perceptions are routinely studied and used in scientific investigations. X-rays are a simple example " undetectable to the five senses but detectable by scientific means. Another example, movement of continental plates; undetectable by the senses but measurable using satellite technology.

It is correct, however, to say that science does not study things that are undetectable. That includes entities and events that appear only in myths and fables (including religious tales).

Present the evidence does not include unverifiable tales, testimonials, opinions. For instance, science does not study the Loch Ness monster (though it may look for evidence). If and when the monster is presented for examination (has been detected), then it can become a subject of study.

[marco]

Science is very good for examining and explaining physical things, you know, things that do exist

.

Tcg seems to have made the epistemological error of conflating "existence" with "accessible to the five bodily sense perceptions."

Were that the error it would also offend grammar, given science is an abstract noun and "accessible to..." an adjectival phrase. Saying science is very good at explaining physical things is perfectly true. I see no epistemological error.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 136 by Zzyzx]

Another example is the electro magnetic spectrum. The human eye can only detect about .0035% of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-o ... their-eyes