After a recent exchange with a Christian, this Christian claimed a positive belief in the resurrection is the best position to hold after critical thought. Reference post 49 of (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 5#p1130835)
Below are the following positions one could take, baring one has performed their due diligence, regarding full investigation for this very large and "extraordinary" claim:
a) believe it did happen
b) believe it did not happen
c) remain 'agnostic', or not convinced, or undecided, doubtful, unbelieving, other...
***********************
For debate:
It is the Christian's burden to support why a positive belief in a resurrection holds to the best conclusion for this claim after critically thinking. --- option (a).
I guess that means it is also the gnostic atheist's position to support why disbelief in a resurrection holds to the best conclusion for this claim after critically thinking. -- option (b).
Option (c) carries no real burden, as one is merely unresolved or undecided on either (a) or (b).
Thus, 'Christians' and 'hard atheists', let the games begin! What is the best position to hold and why --- after sufficient critical thinking; a, b, or c?
Belief in the Resurrection is the Best Position to Hold
Moderator: Moderators
-
POI
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3528
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
- Has thanked: 1620 times
- Been thanked: 1084 times
Belief in the Resurrection is the Best Position to Hold
Post #1In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
-
TRANSPONDER
- Savant
- Posts: 8218
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 960 times
- Been thanked: 3557 times
Re: Belief in the Resurrection is the Best Position to Hold
Post #41Yes.I have nothing much to add to that.
The hypothesis is equally valid that Paul was relating a Jewish Christian (Nazoreans/Jesus' disciples) belief in a vision of Jesus' spirit that had gone to heaven, and would come again in their lifetimes. I already laid out a possible scenario of how Paul would have found reason to switch from hostility to belief.
This at some time fairly soon became a need for evidence, not that the spirit ascended but the body got up and walked. Or there might be a real empty tomb, the body being removed, because (as you noted) Jesus would not need the tomb to be open.
The tomb of course had to be seen to be open and empty, and the women were used to be witnesses, and in the synoptics (not in John) an angel is sat there to explain what this all means. It could be the needs of the story or the women could really have found the tomb empty.
This of course wasn't good enough, so encounters with the risen Jesus have to be invented. These are done independently and that is why they contradict.
I suggest that Luke being quite late, reads Paul's letters (copied and circulated) and adapts the story as it is according to Mark, to fit with what Paul says. The disciples do not go to Galilee, but stay in Jerusalem and found the Church. Then Acts is written to explain how that is handed over to Paul.
I think there is evidence to support all this, but it is an equally valid hypothesis even without.
The hypothesis is equally valid that Paul was relating a Jewish Christian (Nazoreans/Jesus' disciples) belief in a vision of Jesus' spirit that had gone to heaven, and would come again in their lifetimes. I already laid out a possible scenario of how Paul would have found reason to switch from hostility to belief.
This at some time fairly soon became a need for evidence, not that the spirit ascended but the body got up and walked. Or there might be a real empty tomb, the body being removed, because (as you noted) Jesus would not need the tomb to be open.
The tomb of course had to be seen to be open and empty, and the women were used to be witnesses, and in the synoptics (not in John) an angel is sat there to explain what this all means. It could be the needs of the story or the women could really have found the tomb empty.
This of course wasn't good enough, so encounters with the risen Jesus have to be invented. These are done independently and that is why they contradict.
I suggest that Luke being quite late, reads Paul's letters (copied and circulated) and adapts the story as it is according to Mark, to fit with what Paul says. The disciples do not go to Galilee, but stay in Jerusalem and found the Church. Then Acts is written to explain how that is handed over to Paul.
I think there is evidence to support all this, but it is an equally valid hypothesis even without.
