Why believe in resurrections?

[marco]

We learn that Lazarus was already decomposing when Jesus asked him to step back to life. And he did. This is so absurd that one wonders how anyone could accept it. But many do.


Jesus went a step better and, having died, rose up. The effect is spoiled by silly details: he folded his funeral vestments up and left an angel in the sepulchre to explain his absence. Next he played hide and seek, disappearing somewhere and returning through walls. People still believe this all happened in the time when Rome was building roadways across Europe and North Africa, and doing so without a wand.


Why are these stories believed by intelligent people?

What extra part in them turns them from absurdity into truth?

[For_The_Kingdom]

We learn that Lazarus was already decomposing when Jesus asked him to step back to life. And he did. This is so absurd that one wonders how anyone could accept it. But many do.


Jesus went a step better and, having died, rose up. The effect is spoiled by silly details: he folded his funeral vestments up and left an angel in the sepulchre to explain his absence. Next he played hide and seek, disappearing somewhere and returning through walls. People still believe this all happened in the time when Rome was building roadways across Europe and North Africa, and doing so without a wand.


Why are these stories believed by intelligent people?

What extra part in them turns them from absurdity into truth?

Why are these stories so hard to believe, if the stories are based on the existence of an omnipotent being? Now sure, if the claim was that resurrections occurred NATURALLY, then yes, I would share your concern. However, that was NEVER the claim; the claim has always been that resurrections are miracles that require the power/will of God.

Now, based on that, the stories should not be considered "absurd", unless you find the mere concept/existence of an omnipotent being absurd...and if you do, then I'd like to take you to task on that one.

However, resurrections (and beliefs) of resurrections are based on the predetermined belief in God, and that God exists.

If unbelievers (atheists/naturalists) spent more time concerning themselves with the absurdity of dead matter coming to life and beginning to talk (you know, stuff that no one has EVER seen before but yet continue to believe), instead of concerning themselves with the likelihood of an alleged omnipotent being having the capability of raising someone from the dead..If unbelievers concerned themselves more on the latter instead of the former, then I wouldn't be replying to this thread right now.

[Zzyzx]

.

Correction: A rational explanation for the claimed 'resurrection' is that it is folklore, legend, myth, or pious tale.

There is NO verification of the 'resurrection' -- only TALES told in religion promotional literature. There are also religious tales about flying carpets and winged horses. Are they true because religion tells them?

If you are trying to say that the Bible is not a source accurate historical knowledge.

Notice what I actually said. “A rational explanation for the claimed 'resurrection' is that it is folklore, legend, myth, or pious tale.�

Would you care to show why the ‘resurrection’ tale cannot be RATIONALLY considered as rational? Note: rational is defined as: “agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible� www.dictionary.com

What verifiable evidence (something more than the tales themselves or their derivatives) proves that a long-dead body came back to life?

A TALE of a body being placed in a tomb (and supposedly guarded) is not guaranteed to be true and accurate

A TALE about an empty tomb is decidedly NOT evidence of reanimation of the corpus
There are many empty tombs. Does that indicate many ‘resurrections’?

A TALE about people supposedly seeing the deceased after storied death is not verification that the deceased came back to life
Many people claim to have seen Elvis too. Does that mean he was supernatural and returned to life?


However, since you raise the issue, I do not regard the Bible as a RELIABLE source of truthful and accurate information. There may be SOME truthful and accurate statements – or “. . . picking diamonds from the dungheap� according to Thomas Jefferson

Talking donkeys and serpents?
Virgin birth?
Worldwide flood ‘to the tops of mountains’?
Living in a fish / whale?
Curing blindness with spit and mud?

WHAT historical / archaeological evidence supports those TALES? Why shouldn’t they be regarded as myth, fable, legend, pious exaggerations, folklore?

You would be in a serious minority among both conservative and liberal New Testament scholars. I am not sure that there are any that would agree with you if that is your view of the Bible.

NO, say it isn’t true that some NT scholars disagree with me. Surely you jest.

Somehow I do not feel intimidated.

Bultmann tried deemphasize the Historicity of Jesus in his form criticism. But his form criticism was thoroughly rejected.

Notice that I do not depend upon or align myself with Bultmann (or anyone else)

1. By deemphasizing the historical basis for the life of Jesus, Bultmann failed to provided both early and and modern Christians with the grounding that is indispensable for the founding and present existence of the Christian faith. The point is that without a historical core of knowledge concerning Jesus, Christianity would have little initial impetus to encourage faith in an otherwise unknown person.

The same can be said for Joseph Smith, Mohammad, and other cult / religious idols and promoters.

People believing something is decidedly NOT evidence that it is true. There are many gullible and naive people willing to believe what they are told – without checking its truth and accuracy.

[Zzyzx]

.

Why are these stories so hard to believe, if the stories are based on the existence of an omnipotent being? Now sure, if the claim was that resurrections occurred NATURALLY, then yes, I would share your concern. However, that was NEVER the claim; the claim has always been that resurrections are miracles that require the power/will of God.

Did a ‘god’ perform miracles? How can that be verified (more substantial evidence than tales, testimonials, and opinions)? Feel free to open a separate thread.

Now, based on that, the stories should not be considered "absurd", unless you find the mere concept/existence of an omnipotent being absurd...and if you do, then I'd like to take you to task on that one.

I find the concept of an omnipotent being to be without verifiable substantiating evidence.

Feel free to take me to task on that – in a separate thread.

However, resurrections (and beliefs) of resurrections are based on the predetermined belief in God, and that God exists.

Yes, belief in tales of ‘resurrection’ are based on belief in gods.

In fact, belief in one particular ‘god’ among the thousands worshiped by humans; AND belief in ancient tales about what the claimed ‘god’ can or did do.

In other words, if you are a believer you believe.

If unbelievers (atheists/naturalists) spent more time concerning themselves with the absurdity of dead matter coming to life

Failed distraction. This thread has nothing to do with origin of life.

Feel free to start a thread to discuss that topic.

and beginning to talk (you know, stuff that no one has EVER seen before but yet continue to believe), instead of concerning themselves with the likelihood of an alleged omnipotent being having the capability of raising someone from the dead..

Alleged and imaginary beings can be claimed to do whatever the speaker / writer wishes them to do – in fantasy, folklore, legends, myths, fables, and religious tales.

What verifiable evidence shows that any of the alleged beings brought long-dead bodies back to life (NOT just ancient TALES or modern OPINIONS).

If unbelievers concerned themselves more on the latter instead of the former, then I wouldn't be replying to this thread right now.

Sure would save a lot of time if people just agreed that gods exist and ‘resurrect’ dead bodies, wouldn’t it?

It would also save time if people just agreed that ‘gods’ cannot be / have not been shown to be anything more than products of human imagination (even the favorite ones).

Perhaps that is why we debate. Some believe that invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities exist (and perform 'miracles') and others do not believe the claims / tales.

[marco]

Bultmann's Ideas of form criticism were rejected because ….

I am not Bultmann. It would be better to address what I have said rather than present somebody's critique about somebody on something.

Simply believing something that we wish is true does not make it true.

This applies, a fortiori, to those who accept the resurrection.

You may wish the resurrection not to be true but it is the only rational explanation that explains all of the facts. That God entered into the realm of men to save men their sins.

I don't wish any such thing any more than I want the moon to be made of green cheese. Theories about the origins of life are just that: theories. The question of the resurrection is not in the same category; people are claiming that a corpse rose up from the dead, and they accept this on the basis of human statements. It did NOT happen. Those who genuinely thought Christ rose from the dead were mistaken.


The choice is between human error, deceit, trickery..... or miracle.

We KNOW humans err, trick and deceive. We do not know that corpses rise up. Therefore there is but one sensible conclusion: Christ did not rise from the dead, whatever else he did.

Your discussion on historians and how history is made has nothing to do with accepting the resurrection. We can accept people THOUGHT it happened but we do not need to believe any more than we believe Muhamamd flew up to Allah on a winged horse. When history asks us to believe the impossible, we reject the historical account - or rather, its interpretation. Those who accept the resurrection are not siding with history.

[Zzyzx]

.

We KNOW humans err, trick and deceive. We do not know that corpses rise up.

We can accept people THOUGHT it happened but we do not need to believe any more than we believe Muhamamd flew up to Allah on a winged horse.

These two statements cover the matter well.

Why set aside what we know is not only possible and even common to accept what we do not know is possible? Answer: wishful thinking / believing what we want to believe / religion

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 41 by Zzyzx]

Notice what I actually said. “A rational explanation for the claimed 'resurrection' is that it is folklore, legend, myth, or pious tale.�

Would you care to show why the ‘resurrection’ tale cannot be RATIONALLY considered as rational? Note: rational is defined as: “agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible� www.dictionary.com

What verifiable evidence (something more than the tales themselves or their derivatives) proves that a long-dead body came back to life?

Why would it not be rational to believe that God could raise Jesus from the dead since He did create all life on this planet.

The question then is there evidence that God did raise Jesus from the dead.

Bultmann had ideas similar to yours, but his ideas were refuted by scholars one of the criticisms was the following.

e. Bultmann's form critics speak a lot about the experiences of the disciples, but history looks for adequate causes behind these experiences.

1. Christianity started in Judea where Jesus was Crucified. It was born and it grew and it was persecuted.
2. The resurrection was central in the kerygma of Christianity. How would this be possible in city in which Jesus was Crucified.
3. Christian kerygma can be traced to within a few years of the crucifiction.
4. The disciples believed that they saw the risen Jesus, including Paul.
5. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship instead of the Jewish sabbath day which was Saturday.
6. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
7. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).
8. Why would skeptics believe if they were to be persecuted because of their belief?

Any theory would have to explain why these experiences happen.

A TALE of a body being placed in a tomb (and supposedly guarded) is not guaranteed to be true and accurate

A TALE about an empty tomb is decidedly NOT evidence of reanimation of the corpus
There are many empty tombs. Does that indicate many ‘resurrections’?

A TALE about people supposedly seeing the deceased after storied death is not verification that the deceased came back to life
Many people claim to have seen Elvis too. Does that mean he was supernatural and returned to life?

Gary Habermas "I did a count recently of people who have written from about 1990 to-date [2009]. 75% of scholars today say that resurrection or 'something like it occurred.' Of that 75%, three to one say it is a bodily appearance. Ted Peters had a book that was published by Eerdmans a few years ago, and 20 out of 20 scholars in his book that he edited said 'bodily resurrection.' Higher critical scholars who are in the minority will still usually concede the appearance involved sight and was embodied."

Habermas recorded 1400 scholars (both skeptics and non-skeptics alike) whom 75% agree the tomb was empty and nearly all agree the original disciples truly believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead bodily, for a vision wouldn't convince the disciples of resurrection.

However, since you raise the issue, I do not regard the Bible as a RELIABLE source of truthful and accurate information. There may be SOME truthful and accurate statements – or “. . . picking diamonds from the dungheap� according to Thomas Jefferson

Talking donkeys and serpents?
Virgin birth?
Worldwide flood ‘to the tops of mountains’?
Living in a fish / whale?
Curing blindness with spit and mud?

WHAT historical / archaeological evidence supports those TALES? Why shouldn’t they be regarded as myth, fable, legend, pious exaggerations, folklore?

EarthScienceguy wrote:

You would be in a serious minority among both conservative and liberal New Testament scholars. I am not sure that there are any that would agree with you if that is your view of the Bible.

NO, say it isn’t true that some NT scholars disagree with me. Surely you jest.

Somehow I do not feel intimidated.

The New Testament Scholar Rudolf Bultmann had similar views about the reliability of the NT but his views were thoroughly refuted.

Oxford ancient historian A.N. Sherwin-White and Micheal Grant author of Jesus: An Historian''s Review. Level these seven criticisms against Bultmann's Historiography.

a. Historians work like Herodotus, Livy, and Tacitus all show similarities in several respects to the Gospels, including a moralizing intent. These ancient historians writings are all accepted as historical.

b. The type of literature that Bultmann believes that New Testament gospels to be. This type of literature is not found any where in ancient history.

c. The Gospels are quite close to the period of time that they record, while other ancient histories such as those by Plutarch and Livy often describe events that took place even centuries earlier. Modern Historians are able to successfully to delineate data even from these early periods of time.

d. Ancient histories sometimes, "disagree amongst themselves in the wildest possible fashion," Such as the four ancient sources that describe Tiberius Caesar, and yet accurate history can still be glean from these sources. Paul Maier makes the same point about the cause of the fire in Rome.

e. Bultmann's form critics speak a lot about the experiences of the disciples, but history looks for adequate causes behind these causes.

f. Portions of the NT like the book of Acts are confirmed by external indications of historicity.

g. The primary goal of the Gospel writers was spiritual, history was also very important. There is no reason why Gospel writers would pervert the historical in order to preserve the spiritual when both were so important and even complimented each other.

EarthScienceguy wrote:

Bultmann tried deemphasize the Historicity of Jesus in his form criticism. But his form criticism was thoroughly rejected.

Notice that I do not depend upon or align myself with Bultmann (or anyone else)

It doesn't matter because his views are the same as yours. That is why I am referencing him.

EarthScienceguy wrote:

1. By deemphasizing the historical basis for the life of Jesus, Bultmann failed to provided both early and and modern Christians with the grounding that is indispensable for the founding and present existence of the Christian faith. The point is that without a historical core of knowledge concerning Jesus, Christianity would have little initial impetus to encourage faith in an otherwise unknown person.

The same can be said for Joseph Smith, Mohammad, and other cult / religious idols and promoters.

Do you understand what the point of the comment is?

The core message of Christianity is that Jesus died and He then raised from the dead.

So there has to be a reason when intelligent people would believe this and teacher others to believe this in the face of persecution.


People believing something is decidedly NOT evidence that it is true. There are many gullible and naive people willing to believe what they are told – without checking its truth and accuracy

Like abiogenesis.
or panspermia

[FWI]

I struggle to understand this.

Yes, it seems so…But, there are hundreds of millions who don't! I don't struggle to understand it. So, because some do struggle with the concept, doesn't make the concept invalid. Denying the proof and its sources can only relate to an opinion. Which, also has no real effect on the validity of the concept.

If somebody tells us they were abducted and carry a message from aliens, then are we at fault for not accepting the highly improbable?

Well, that depends…If, someone rejects a hard to accept concept, because of beliefs, yet accepts another one, such as: the unexplained source of the forces needed to allow the earth to hang in space, then we have a huge disconnect here or maybe even bias. Where, gravity is a phenomenon or an unusual, unaccountable or remarkable fact or occurrence that can't be seen, heard, smelled, tasted or touched. Hence, we can't have it both ways. Or, can we? Which, seems to be the position that many want to take.

So, why would we be willing to accept that it happened, just because some ancient souls said so?

The misconception here is that: "they aren't being asked to accept this" (by God or His Son), nor would their rejection of it, have any affect related to it coming to be…So, it doesn't matter if humans believe in the resurrection or if they don't. The fact of the resurrection is not determined by beliefs, it is by the will of God that this event has and will happen again.

[For_The_Kingdom]

.
Did a ‘god’ perform miracles?

Did "Mother nature" successfully pull off the task of creating sentient life from dead matter?

How can that be verified (more substantial evidence than tales, testimonials, and opinions)? Feel free to open a separate thread.

Feel free to open a separate thread involving the empirical evidence for abiogenesis.

I find the concept of an omnipotent being to be without verifiable substantiating evidence.

Feel free to take me to task on that – in a separate thread.

I find the concept of abiogenesis and macroevolution to be without verifiable substantiating evidence.

Feel free to take me to task on that - in a separate thread.

Yes, belief in tales of ‘resurrection’ are based on belief in gods.

In fact, belief in one particular ‘god’ among the thousands worshiped by humans; AND belief in ancient tales about what the claimed ‘god’ can or did do.

In other words, if you are a believer you believe.

Well, either way you put it; the question is "Why believe in resurrections"; and I provided an answer as to why we believe in resurrections. Plain and simple.

Now, you may not agree with the answer provided, but that doesn't negate the fact that an answer was provided.

Failed distraction. This thread has nothing to do with origin of life.

No, it doesn't. But one conversation leads to another.

Alleged and imaginary beings can be claimed to do whatever the speaker / writer wishes them to do – in fantasy, folklore, legends, myths, fables, and religious tales.

Sure, it even works that way in science. Life is said to have originated from dead material...animals are said to have undergone certain macro-transformations that no one has ever witnessed, etc.

All fantasy, fictional voodoo science.

What verifiable evidence shows that any of the alleged beings brought long-dead bodies back to life (NOT just ancient TALES or modern OPINIONS).

Believers believe we have strong historical evidence that long-dead bodies came back to life.

Now, we understand that unbelievers don't share our sentiments here, but then again, we don't share their sentiments that dead matter came to life and began to talk, either.

So hey.

Sure would save a lot of time if people just agreed that gods exist and ‘resurrect’ dead bodies, wouldn’t it?

Not at all, any more than it would save a lot of time if people just all agreed that reptiles evolved into birds or that once land-dwelling whales suddenly began to evolve and migrate to the ocean.

It would also save time if people just agreed that ‘gods’ cannot be / have not been shown to be anything more than products of human imagination (even the favorite ones).

Shown to be? Shown to be to whom? Not me.

Perhaps that is why we debate. Some believe that invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities exist (and perform 'miracles') and others do not believe the claims / tales.

Some of us also believe that long ago, when no one was around to see it, life was one long, drawn-out episode of "Transformers".

Others do not believe such claims/tales.

[otseng]

[Replying to post 47 by For_The_Kingdom]

Moderator Comment

Please avoid starting topics in the thread that are not directly relevant to the OP.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.