Debating the Truth of the Resurrection.

One-on-one debates

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA

Debating the Truth of the Resurrection.

Post #1

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

I will go first.

The resurrection might only approach the "best explanation" if it stands without any natural explanation to challenge it. And that simply is not the case.

The four Gospels represent the ONLY information on the life Jesus that anyone supposes has any connection to valid history. And a good deal of what is contained in the NT strains credulity. In fact, it is flatly unbelievable. Here is a short version of events that closely follows the accepted story, but which does not require any recourse to any supernatural occurrences. I am not claiming that this is what actually occurred, simply that it explains the events naturally without recourse to supernatural claims.

Matthew 27:
[62] Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
[63] Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
[65] Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
[66] So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

The day after the crucifixion chief priests went out to Joseph's tomb, and finding it covered with a large stone, and owing to the nature of the day (the Sabbath and Passover) did not open and search it, but instead secured what was an already empty tomb! Why was the tomb already empty? Because Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, got legal possession of the body from the Roman governor.

Matthew 27:
[57]When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple
[58] He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.

Joseph never intended that his brand new family crypt should be the final resting place for Jesus, but only used it as a convenient place to wash and prepare the body. Because the day was late and his tomb was "nigh at hand" (John 19:42) to the place where Jesus had been crucified. The next day when the priests secured Joseph's tomb, the body of Jesus was already being relocated to its actual intended final resting place by his disciples.

And so exactly what the priests feared the disciples intended to do is EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. Joseph's tomb proved to be empty. Six weeks later the disciples returned to Jerusalem and began to circulate the rumor that Jesus had "risen" from the dead. Something only they witnessed, according to them.

So when the priests took possession of Joseph's new tomb on the next day, they did not open and inspect it for the body of Jesus, because it was a high holy day. Instead they placed seals on the tomb to insure that whatever its condition was that condition would remain until they could return and inspect the tomb. The tomb proved to be empty the next morning. Clearly the body of Jesus WAS ALREADY GONE! The conclusion that Christians declare to be the only explanation for the empty tomb is in fact the least likely explanation.


So where would the final resting place of Jesus likely have been? The Gospels do not say, but we can make an educated guess. It was a strong custom among the Jews to bury their dead with family members. Any family of any substance had a personal family crypt where family members were interred together. Rich folks like Joseph could afford hand cut family crypts to be constructed. Folks of lesser means tended to use natural caves and caverns, usually with the family named carved at the entrance. If Joseph the rich man truly wanted to honor Jesus, he would have had the body transported home to be buried with is own family, not inter him with Joseph's family. Home to his family in Galilee, about 65 miles to the north east of Jerusalem. About a three day journey on foot. All down hill.

Matthew 28:
[16] Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

The remaining apostles all journeyed to Galilee after the crucifixion! The home of the family of Jesus.

The only thing I am assuming is that Joseph of Arimathea never intended to use his personal family crypt as the final resting place for Jesus, only used it as a convenient place to wash and prepare the body, and had the body shipped home to be buried by Jesus' own family members. All of which fits easily into the story at hand.

Why was Joseph's tomb empty on sunday morning? BECAUSE THE PRIESTS TOOK POSSESSION OF AN EMPTY TOMB ON SATURDAY. The body had already been moved by the disciples of Jesus WHO ALREADY HAD LEGAL POSSESSION OF IT.

This is in fact THE OBVIOUS CONCLUSION! The conclusion that the body came back to life and left the tomb under its own power, ultimately flying off up into the clouds, is the LEAST LIKELY CONCLUSION. In fact this conclusion has no likelihood at all.

So, is this they way things actually played out? There is no way to know just how much of the story is valid. This particular accounting makes perfect sense however. It DOES NOT lead to supposing that a corpse came back to life and subsequently flew away I am afraid.

Post #52
viewtopic.php?p=902413#902413

Now at long last, please answer the question.
Image "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1916
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Post #21

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

Tired of the Nonsense wrote: You consider that life arising from nonliving matter to be "speculation and baseless assertions."
It is. It sure as heck ain't based on empirical science.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: But that happens to simply be standard biology.
So what about biology will get you to abiogenesis?
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: When I pointed out that the Jewish priests took possession of Joseph's closed tomb on Saturday but never inspected it, you consider any other conclusion but that the corpse of Jesus must have came back to life and vacated the tomb on it's own to be "speculation and baseless assertions."
I actually agreed with you that the Jewish priests took possession of the tomb, because after all, that is in fact what the Bible says.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: It's clear however that the obvious conclusion is that the tomb was already empty when the priests took possession of it.
Again, speculation and baseless assertion. You have no reason to think that, other than "anything is better than the supernatural hypothesis".
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: It's also clear that what you consider to be "speculation and baseless assertions" also happens to be what corresponds to the obvious natural conclusion. You assert that any conclusion but the conclusion that corresponds to your make believe to be "without foundation." So it was always clear that when provided with detailed examples of natural explanations that undermine your make believe, you would eventually choose to run and hide. I just didn't expect it quite so early.
The "detailed examples of natural explanations" have to reflect the narrative...hell, saying that a Calvary

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
But my last response to you is still up there. You still have time to respond and establish that it is nothing more than "speculation and baseless assertions." It's up to you.
For_The_kingdom wrote: My challenge to an A/V debate with you is also "still up there". It's up to you.
Why would I choose a text debate site to become involved with an A/V debate? Besides, I have already exposed your inability to defend your make believe nonsense.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
As long as you choose not to respond, this is little more than false bravado. I will agree however, that leaving the debate now saves you from watching your beliefs being ripped to shreds in detail.

For_The_kingdom wrote: LOL.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
I already agreed that this is true. You were going to run an hide eventually. That was always inevitable. You simply did it before you had any real time invested in the debate. Losing now or losing later is still losing.
For_The_kingdom wrote: Me..run from you? SMH.
LOL and SMH do not represent cogent arguments. You dropped the ball and stopped debating. You are currently dancing and dogging. But you are not debating.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Because continuously getting thumped makes both you and your claims look ridiculous.
For_The_kingdom wrote: You give your arguments wayyy more credit than they deserve.
In that case my arguments should be ridiculously easy to overcome. Surely there are books written by Christian apologists that can help you out with this?

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
LOL & SMH are not replacements for actual facts and reason.
For_The_kingdom wrote: They are, however, true expressions of the way I feel at the time.
You are disdainful of anything that contradicts your lifetime of Christian indoctrination, this is clear. But when push comes to shove, disdain is not the same thing as actually having the necessary goods required to support your make believe, is it!


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
I have already beaten you. Unless you are willing to address my last post, you remain yesterday's rubble.
For_The_kingdom wrote: I'll be that.

And oh, one of your comrades stated.

Quote:
I find it amusing that your opponent has all kinds of time and energy to explain how he doesn't like the text format of a text format debate site, but not enough time and energy to simply engage in the actual debate.

That's quite telling.

Yeah but then again, my time and energy explaining how I don't like the text format isn't 2+ pages long, either, is it?
You choose to come to the DC&R forum, not vice-versa. You can't really expect the forum to conform to you.[/quote]

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1916
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Post #22

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

Tired of the Nonsense wrote: You consider that life arising from nonliving matter to be "speculation and baseless assertions." But that happens to simply be standard biology. When I pointed out that the Jewish priests took possession of Joseph's closed tomb on Saturday but never inspected it, you consider any other conclusion but that the corpse of Jesus must have came back to life and vacated the tomb on it's own to be "speculation and baseless assertions." It's clear however that the obvious conclusion is that the tomb was already empty when the priests took possession of it. It's also clear that what you consider to be "speculation and baseless assertions" also happens to be what corresponds to the obvious natural conclusion. You assert that any conclusion but the conclusion that corresponds to your make believe to be "without foundation." So it was always clear that when provided with detailed examples of natural explanations that undermine your make believe, you would eventually choose to run and hide. I just didn't expect it quite so early.
It isn't so "clear" to me.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: Why would I choose a text debate site to become involved with an A/V debate?
First of all, this isn't a "text only" debate site. So I don't know where you are getting that stuff from. I've already cleared it with Otseng that we can feel free to post videos as we please, and if we choose to have an A/V debate and post it on here, that is our contribution to the forum.

Your refusal to accept the challenge is a personal choice on your part. Nothing more, nothing less.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: Besides, I have already exposed your inability to defend your make believe nonsense.
SMH.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote: LOL and SMH do not represent cogent arguments.
Sometimes, all you can do is laugh and shake your head...
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: You dropped the ball and stopped debating. You are currently dancing and dogging. But you are not debating.
I told you where we can take this..
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: In that case my arguments should be ridiculously easy to overcome. Surely there are books written by Christian apologists that can help you out with this?
A/V
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: You are disdainful of anything that contradicts your lifetime of Christian indoctrination, this is clear. But when push comes to shove, disdain is not the same thing as actually having the necessary goods required to support your make believe, is it!
A/V

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
You choose to come to the DC&R forum, not vice-versa. You can't really expect the forum to conform to you.
Of the willing..

Post Reply