Forum | Welcome | Debate Rules | Links | Facebook | Twitter | Donate  
Debating Christianity and Religion
Civil Christian Debate
 
 FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in

Did the Resurrection of Jesus literally occur as claimed in
For_The_Kingdom vs. Zzyzx

Goto page Previous  1, 2  
Reply to topic    Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Head-to-head
Author Message
Zzyzx
First Post
PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2016 5:50 pm  Did the Resurrection of Jesus literally occur as claimed in Reply with quote

.
Did the Resurrection of Jesus literally occur as claimed in the Bible?

Following death human bodies decompose

Quote:
The first stage begins shortly after death. Once the heart stops beating, the body's cells can no longer maintain homeostasis (a stable equilibrium of temperature, pH, and other factors), so they rupture. "When that happens, you start getting skin slippage" — Wescott mimes the skin falling off his own arm — "and you have putrefaction. This is when the bacteria start feeding on you. All of a sudden, there's this really rich carbon source for them."

Within a few days, this frenzy of feeding leads to the second stage: bloat. As bacteria digest the solid components of the body, they release gases — hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and methane — which cause the body to swell enormously. When a body at Freeman Ranch is in "full bloat," as the researchers say, it can expand to twice its previous size, in some cases even pushing the metal cage off the ground. During this stage, bacterial production of sulfur also gives the body a strange, yellowish color, part of a process called "marbling."

Bloating also triggers the arrival of flies, which lay eggs in any exposed orifice, including the eyes, ears, nose, and mouth — and for bodies that have been autopsied, the long incision that runs the length of the chest. A couple of days later, these eggs hatch into maggots, which cover the skin in a thick, crawling swarm. Because so many maggots hatch on the face, they consume the flesh there fastest, which creates a strange juxtaposition: a shriveled, blackened skull with carved-open features attached to a still-swollen body. The remains in this stage are the most jarring on the farm — distended, vividly-colored bodies, still fleshy enough to roughly resemble living humans but covered in a carpet of maggots. Get too close and flies will start landing on you, too.

After three days of decomposition, the body moves to the third stage: purge. At this point, it begins to shrink, as skin bursts open to relieve mounting pressure and fluids leak out. "The purge is so rich in nitrogen that it actually kills off all the vegetation around it," Wescott says, pointing to the blackened dead grass surrounding one body. "But if you come back in year, it'll be really high in plant life, because it'll act as a fertilizer."
http://www.vox.com/2014/10/28/7078151/body-farm-texas-freeman-ranch-decay


Quote:
Decomposition begins several minutes after death with a process called autolysis, or self-digestion. Soon after the heart stops beating, cells become deprived of oxygen, and their acidity increases as the toxic by-products of chemical reactions begin to accumulate inside them. Enzymes start to digest cell membranes and then leak out as the cells break down. This usually begins in the liver, which is rich in enzymes, and in the brain, which has a high water content. Eventually, though, all other tissues and organs begin to break down in this way. Damaged blood cells begin to spill out of broken vessels and, aided by gravity, settle in the capillaries and small veins, discolouring the skin.

Body temperature also begins to drop, until it has acclimatised to its surroundings. Then, rigor mortis – “the stiffness of death” – sets in, starting in the eyelids, jaw and neck muscles, before working its way into the trunk and then the limbs. In life, muscle cells contract and relax due to the actions of two filamentous proteins (actin and myosin), which slide along each other. After death, the cells are depleted of their energy source and the protein filaments become locked in place. This causes the muscles to become rigid and locks the joints.

During these early stages, the cadaveric ecosystem consists mostly of the bacteria that live in and on the living human body. Our bodies host huge numbers of bacteria; every one of the body’s surfaces and corners provides a habitat for a specialised microbial community. By far the largest of these communities resides in the gut, which is home to trillions of bacteria of hundreds or perhaps thousands of different species.

The gut microbiome is one of the hottest research topics in biology; it’s been linked to roles in human health and a plethora of conditions and diseases, from autism and depression to irritable bowel syndrome and obesity. But we still know little about these microbial passengers. We know even less about what happens to them when we die.
http://gizmodo.com/this-is-what-happens-to-your-body-after-you-die-1702224627

Both articles continue at length.

These conditions are known to exist / occur and can be documented, demonstrated, verified, observed by anyone interested and motivated to study the matter and/or visit a body farm. The decomposition processes are considered by forensic biologists to be irreversible.

If someone contends that they know of exceptions to the above which include a long-dead body coming back to life they are welcome to present verifiable evidence that the claimed exception occurred – in defiance of what is know by modern scientific study.

If someone contends that supernaturalism or “divine action” was involved they are invited to present verifiable information that such interventions or actions actually occurred (something more substantial than ancient stories or modern opinions).

Note: Bible stories cannot be used to verify Bible stories. The Bible is not considered authoritative or proof of truth in these debates. “Millions believe” is invalid – an example of the logical blunder known as argumentum ad populum (a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it).
For_The_Kingdom Offline
Under Probation
Sage
Joined: 05 May 2016
Total posts: 656
Gender: Undisclosed

635.63 tokens
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 11: Sun Sep 04, 2016 11:25 pm  Re: Did the Resurrection of Jesus literally occur as claimed Reply

Zzyzx wrote:

.Your total argument so far is that 2000 years ago some people are said to have believed that an empty tomb = corpus came back to life and left; and that they believed that they had seen the deceased alive afterward.


Yes, which I am basing upon the testimony of two guys (Paul and Luke) that was living at the time and geographical location of the events in question.

Zzyzx wrote:

You claim this is the best explanation for the storied events and evidence that the “resurrection” actually, literally occurred.


There is more to it than that, but in a nut shell, yes.

Zzyzx wrote:

That “argument” may appeal to those who already believe the story. However, it depends upon a claim that “supernatural miracles happen” and that the Bible is authoritative and proof of truth. Those assumptions are NOT made under the terms to which we agreed to debate (C&A Guidelines apply and Bible is not authoritative or proof of truth).


As long as I can articulate why the Bible is true/accurate when it comes to the topic of discussion, then Bible needs to be at least considered, or "put on trial".

This automatic dismissal of the Bible thing you have going on is an act of prejudice, and is quite frankly, bullshit.

Zzyzx wrote:

You insist on bringing up the origin of life – which has NOTHING to do with dead bodies coming back to life, AND falsely assume that I support abiogenesis (when my actual position is that I have no idea how life began). Again, however, that has nothing to do with the debate and is nothing more than a red herring / straw man.

I trust that very few readers are fooled by evasive tactics masquerading as debate.


Ok, well anything related to science or nature has no part in this debate, then. Because your mentioning of human body decomposition also HAS NOTHING to do with the Christian hypothesis of God SUPERNATURALLY raising Jesus from the dead...and since you based your entire OP on human body decomposition, you shouldn't be the one to accuse anyone of a straw man tactic, when the entire debate began with a straw man, on your part.

Zzyzx wrote:

Over and over, people believing something does NOT indicate it is true.


Straw man. I never stated nor implied that "Because they believed it, therefore, it is true". Again, it is much more of a thorough analysis than that, which I tried to emphasize in prior posts, which apparently isn't getting through.

I know you would like for the Christian case for the Resurrection to be that simple, just so you can debunk such faulty logic/reasoning with ease. But however, it isn't that simple. We won't make it that easy for you.

Zzyzx wrote:

I make many life decisions – none of which involve any of the thousands of “gods” proposed, worshiped, loved, feared, fought over by proponents.


So, basically, you are exercising a freedom of the will to not evolve your life decisions around any deities. Cool.

Zzyzx wrote:

Yes, Christianity spread throughout the Roman empire when it was adopted as official, state-sanctioned religion of the empire.


That didn't take place until the 3rd century AD. We are talking about first century stuff here, which is the mass spread of the Christian faith, which took place in the mid first century AD.

Zzyzx wrote:

That certainly does not prove that a “resurrection” occurred.


I agree, it doesn't, which is why I never claimed that it did.

Zzyzx wrote:

People of that era were evidently quite prone to believe supernatural tales to account for what they did not understand of the environment and events.


Genetic fallacy.

Zzyzx wrote:

I am an Army vet from before Vietnam – enlisted 101st Airborne Division 1958 to 1961. I have some memory of events that occurred during those years BUT would certainly not claim to have total recall. I would guess that I remember only perhaps 2% or 5% of events – and do NOT remember exact words of conversations.


I am also an Army vet, OIF - enlisted 82nd Airborne Division (07-08) and 101st Aviation Division (10-12) [Fort Huachuca in between times 08-10]. And I served 7 months in Iraq.

Thank you for your service, sir. But again, some people have better memory than others, right?

Zzyzx wrote:

Additionally, I realize that memories are NOT infallible – and are subject to distortion over time.


Yeah, but apparently, everyone seemed to remember the same thing.

Zzyzx wrote:

Correction: Evidence HAS been presented to show that dead bodies do not come back to life.


Sir, with all due respect, do you have a hard time distinguishing the difference between the concepts of natural/supernatural? You presented evidence that dead bodies do not NATURALLY rise from the dead. Fine. I agree with you 100% on that fact.

But the hypothesis isn't that Jesus rose naturally from the dead, it is that God raised Jesus from the dead (supernaturally). So long as that is the hypothesis, then the evidence that you presented is meaningless, as it does nothing to put a monkey wretch into what Christians actually believe. Now, if Christians were going around saying that Jesus rose naturally from the dead, then sure, highlight the fact that dead bodies will naturally decompose over time all you like. But that isn't what is being argued now, is it? No, it isn't.

Zzyzx wrote:

I do not claim any knowledge of supernaturalism. If someone wishes to claim that a supernatural event occurred, they are expected and required (in reasoned and honorable debate) to support their contention with evidence (not unverifiable stories).


So when it comes to the Resurrection, you have an agnostic viewpoint, correct? Lets put that on the record.

Zzyzx wrote:

Correction: I absolutely do not maintain that God or gods do not exist. If you were not so disinterested in reading the very clear statement of my position in signature, you would not repeatedly make that mistake.

Perhaps you think you are debating someone else.


That's why I said "if".

Zzyzx wrote:

False dichotomy. I am not forced to choose between alternatives – but instead acknowledge that I don't know how life began and it has NOTHING to do with dead bodies coming back to life.


Well, the bottom line is, the argument for the Resurrection is based upon one of those options being necessarily true.

Zzyzx wrote:

Would you prefer to debate in Holy Huddle or Theology, Doctrine and Dogma sub-forums?

In those places one need not be concerned about reality or the real world.


LOL.

Zzyzx wrote:

Kindly provide verifiable evidence that supernaturalism and absence of decomposition actually, literally occurred.

You can't and you know you can't. The best you can do is “people believed”.


I've stated repeated that with any belief comes the REASON(S) for any belief. A belief, no matter how minuscule, is accompanied by a REASON for the belief.

The disciples BELIEVED that Jesus had risen from the dead. Why would they BELIEVE this? So, you go over any given alternative as to why they would believe this, and you see which one of the alternatives have the most explanatory power that will explain the empty tomb, origin of the beliefs of former skeptics, like Paul, and James, etc.

After you've exhausted everything, the explanation that withstands all scrutiny after careful examination...wins!! And this subject has had a long history of debate, scrutiny, examination. It isn't anything new.

And what Christians believe is that the best explanation for all of these facts is that Jesus literally rose from the dead.

Zzyzx wrote:

I agree. The “resurrection” is a STORY told by ancient god worshipers.


Right, and the "story" of the cosmos was once that it was infinite/static, and that story was told by natural science worshippers. The problem is, they were wrong.

Zzyzx wrote:

Ancient (and modern) god worshipers often believe(d) that supernatural forces are involved in storms, floods, diseases, crop failures, unfortunate (or fortunate) events, etc. Some believe(d) that their favorite supernatural entities are/were involved in daylight and darkness. Evidently many also believe(d) that dead bodies come back to life.


And?

Zzyzx wrote:

I WOULD NOT attempt to verify something that happened in antiquity.


Yet, it looks to me like your OP was an attempt at verifying that it didn't happen..or at least make a case that it didn't happen.

Of course, as I keep pointing out, the attempt was far left field, but nevertheless, you attempted to make a case as to why it didn't /cant happen, which contradicts the above quote.

Zzyzx wrote:

I do not claim to know what happened “once upon a time in a land far away”


So basically, "I don't know what happened, but I know what DIDN'T happen." Trying to have your cake, and eat it too.

Zzyzx wrote:

and do NOT base life decisions on ancient tales or accounts being accurate and truthful.


Right, you base your "life decisions" on different standards. So what?

Zzyzx wrote:

I quote exactly what people who study such things conclude. If you wish to dispute their findings feel free to enter the field, do the research, and prove them wrong.


Their knowledge of human body decomposition after death doesn't in any way, shape, or form put any crack or dent in the case that a Christian makes for the Resurrection.

Zzyzx wrote:

I trust that readers are aware that stories told from person to person are not expected to be exact after decades or generations.


That depends. If the people from whom the story originally derived from were still alive as the story was told (decades) later, then they would have been around to derail any potential tarnishing of the message. And that is precisely what happened.

As Paul stated in 1Corin 15:6 "....most of whom are alive, though some have fallen asleep"...and he was talking about those whom Jesus had appeared to...and if 1Corinthians was written in the early-mid 50's AD, then that would mean that 20 years after the cross, most of Jesus' followers were still alive and would have been able to quell any embellishment of the Gospel.

So the telephone game won't work here, sir.

Zzyzx wrote:

Is it difficult to admit that professional historians in general and the history profession do NOT regard as truthful and accurate stories about supernatural characters and events?


Yes it is difficult. Guys like Gary Habermas and Mike Licona are professional historians and they are both believers...while guys like Richard Carrier and Bart Erhman are professional historians, yet, they AREN'T believers.

So wouldn't that mean that it depends?

Zzyzx wrote:

Evasion is not likely to go unnoticed by readers – most of whom, I trust, are aware that historians do NOT accept stories of supernatural characters and events as literal truth.


Evasion? Ha. As I just proved above, it is subjective.

Zzyzx wrote:

Historians who happen to be Christians MAY accept bible supernatural characters and tales, but are unlikely to accept similar tales from competing religions.


I didn't know that quantity had anything to do with it. Above, you made it seem as if the majority consensus is that most professional historians do NOT accept stories of supernatural characters.

Now, unless you have some sort of statistical data that will place the statement in your favor, then you don't really know, do you?

Zzyzx wrote:

I do not disagree with the first two


If you don't agree that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure, then you are in the minority, my friend.

Zzyzx wrote:

Correction: You have unverified TALES about burial and an empty tomb.


Well again, I need to know your standard for what can be considered "verified". Because from what we (believers) can see, it IS verified.

Zzyzx wrote:

Paul/Saul admittedly never met Jesus but learned from a “vision” (or hallucination or delusion or fantasy or whatever it was).


So if you take away Paul's own testimony of an "appearance" of Jesus, you still have a contemporary person to Jesus/apostles regarding what the apostles believed in this beginning stage of the movement.

Zzyzx wrote:

Back to “they believed”


And we are also back to the reasons "why" they would believe such a thing.

Zzyzx wrote:

Feel free to elaborate.


I think I meant to say "other" reasons. I forgot what point was being made there. Haha.

Zzyzx wrote:

Exactly. It also cannot be known with certainty if what was written was accurate and truthful.


We don't know with 100% certainty. But we can give it a good 60-70% certainty.

Zzyzx wrote:

Therefore, it would be foolish to maintain that we KNOW something is accurate and truthful.


But yet you seemed certain in your response with the whole "John Hanson" thing earlier, when you only "know" him based on what you've read about him. I guess it is only time to put on our cape and play the "Super Skeptic"s role, only when it comes to Bible stuff.

But when it comes to anything else in history, you practically accept it with no questions asked.

Taxi cab fallacy.

Zzyzx wrote:

And the “best explanation” for an empty tomb is that the deceased came back to life and left and people believed that he did.


No, the best explanation for the empty tomb is that it was recorded by all four Gospels with the supposed earliest one, Mark, having the story...and of course, you can say "but the Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark", well guess what, the author of John didn't, and it also contains the empty tomb narrative.

So at worse, there are two independent books which attest to the empty tomb, and I know you have a problem accepting Biblical evidences, but hey, life isn't fair, is it?

Second, it would be extremely difficult to get the Christian faith off of the ground when you are running around crying about an alleged physical Resurrection of a man, if his physical body in fact still lay in the tomb.

Third, the empty tomb was discovered by women, and women's testimony was unreliable in that culture...and if the story was simply made up by Jewish men, they certainly wouldn't have placed women in the narrative as the discovers of the empty tomb and deliverers of the message that he had risen.

Zzyzx wrote:

Yes, I am saying that according to accounts, tales of “resurrection” originated from followers.

Do you dispute that?


No.
Back to top
Like this post
View user's profile   
Zzyzx 
Site Supporter
Savant

58443.57 tokens
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 12: Mon Sep 05, 2016 12:56 pm  Re: Did the Resurrection of Jesus literally occur as claimed Reply

.
[Replying to post 11 by For_The_Kingdom]


Thanks for the reply. We have found some common ground (or background) -- and a few areas of agreement.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

.Your total argument so far is that 2000 years ago some people are said to have believed that an empty tomb = corpus came back to life and left; and that they believed that they had seen the deceased alive afterward.


Yes, which I am basing upon the testimony of two guys (Paul and Luke) that was living at the time and geographical location of the events in question.

Thus, if two (or four) GIs stationed in Ft. Campbell claim that they saw General William Westmoreland coming out of a bar in Hopkinsville or Clarksville in 2010 (even though he died in 2005) their accounts are believable because they were living in that time and place. Right?

Personal note: He was the new commander of the 101st when I arrived at Campbell in 1958 (both verifiable with official Army documentation).

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

You claim this is the best explanation for the storied events and evidence that the “resurrection” actually, literally occurred.


There is more to it than that, but in a nut shell, yes.

“They believed so it must be true” is a very weak argument upon which to base a belief system. Most of us are aware that people often believe things they are told that is dead wrong, deceitful, fabrication, fantasy. Right?

Belief without substantiation is known as gullibility or naviete.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

That “argument” may appeal to those who already believe the story. However, it depends upon a claim that “supernatural miracles happen” and that the Bible is authoritative and proof of truth. Those assumptions are NOT made under the terms to which we agreed to debate (C&A Guidelines apply and Bible is not authoritative or proof of truth).


As long as I can articulate why the Bible is true/accurate when it comes to the topic of discussion, then Bible needs to be at least considered, or "put on trial".

That is exactly what is being done here.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

This automatic dismissal of the Bible thing you have going on is an act of prejudice, and is quite frankly, bullshit.

The Bible should not be “automatically” dismissed or accepted. Its claims and stories should be examined for truthfulness and accuracy.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

You insist on bringing up the origin of life – which has NOTHING to do with dead bodies coming back to life, AND falsely assume that I support abiogenesis (when my actual position is that I have no idea how life began). Again, however, that has nothing to do with the debate and is nothing more than a red herring / straw man.

I trust that very few readers are fooled by evasive tactics masquerading as debate.


Ok, well anything related to science or nature has no part in this debate, then.

You may wish

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Because your mentioning of human body decomposition also HAS NOTHING to do with the Christian hypothesis of God SUPERNATURALLY raising Jesus from the dead...and since you based your entire OP on human body decomposition, you shouldn't be the one to accuse anyone of a straw man tactic, when the entire debate began with a straw man, on your part.

I see. Religious tales need not reflect real-world conditions at all because they are supernatural tales . . . .

Thus, if a different religion claims that someone went to heaven on a winged horse, the “scientific” knowledge that winged horses do not exist has NOTHING to do with the story. Right?

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Over and over, people believing something does NOT indicate it is true.


Straw man. I never stated nor implied that "Because they believed it, therefore, it is true". Again, it is much more of a thorough analysis than that, which I tried to emphasize in prior posts, which apparently isn't getting through.

What has been presented that does NOT depend upon accepting what others believed?

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

I know you would like for the Christian case for the Resurrection to be that simple, just so you can debunk such faulty logic/reasoning with ease. But however, it isn't that simple. We won't make it that easy for you.

Present the evidence whenever you are ready. “They believed” has worn thin.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

I make many life decisions – none of which involve any of the thousands of “gods” proposed, worshiped, loved, feared, fought over by proponents.


So, basically, you are exercising a freedom of the will to not evolve your life decisions around any deities. Cool.

I do not recognize “free will” or “freedom of will” but recognize that my decisions are based upon constraints of the real world and the culture within which I live.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Yes, Christianity spread throughout the Roman empire when it was adopted as official, state-sanctioned religion of the empire.


That didn't take place until the 3rd century AD. We are talking about first century stuff here, which is the mass spread of the Christian faith, which took place in the mid first century AD.

Paul/Saul and associates were evidently effective promoters. Something need not be true in order to become popular.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

That certainly does not prove that a “resurrection” occurred.


I agree, it doesn't, which is why I never claimed that it did.

Okay. What reasons are there to accept the “resurrection” tale OTHER than the stories and beliefs of promoters of that idea?

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

People of that era were evidently quite prone to believe supernatural tales to account for what they did not understand of the environment and events.


Genetic fallacy.

Correction: A genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.

The “resurrection” tale is here not accepted (rejected) because it is not supported by verifiable evidence from disconnected sources – not because people believed supernatural tales. However, it is being DEFENDED by claims “they believed”. Is that a generic fallacy?

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

I am an Army vet from before Vietnam – enlisted 101st Airborne Division 1958 to 1961. I have some memory of events that occurred during those years BUT would certainly not claim to have total recall. I would guess that I remember only perhaps 2% or 5% of events – and do NOT remember exact words of conversations.


I am also an Army vet, OIF - enlisted 82nd Airborne Division (07-08) and 101st Aviation Division (10-12) [Fort Huachuca in between times 08-10]. And I served 7 months in Iraq.

Thank you for your service, sir.

Same to you

Do you maintain that twenty or thirty years from now you will be able to write an account of exactly what happened during those years – accurate to detail – and quote exactly speeches / talks by leaders – accurate to the word?

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

But again, some people have better memory than others, right?

Yes – and all the gospel writers and their sources of information (whatever those might have been) had excellent memory – enough to quote extensively and with complete accuracy words spoken decades earlier.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Additionally, I realize that memories are NOT infallible – and are subject to distortion over time.


Yeah, but apparently, everyone seemed to remember the same thing.

“Everyone”?

Four accounts were selected by church officials long after the events (perhaps because they harmonized with what those officials wanted included in church doctrine?).

The accounts do NOT show that they remembered the same thing about 1) who arrived at the tomb, 2) how many men or angels were present, 3) who told what to whom, 4) where and when people claim to have seen the deceased.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Correction: Evidence HAS been presented to show that dead bodies do not come back to life.


Sir, with all due respect, do you have a hard time distinguishing the difference between the concepts of natural/supernatural? You presented evidence that dead bodies do not NATURALLY rise from the dead. Fine. I agree with you 100% on that fact.

Thank you

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

But the hypothesis isn't that Jesus rose naturally from the dead, it is that God raised Jesus from the dead (supernaturally).

Exactly. The CLAIM that supernaturalism was involved is challenged here. Evidence beyond “they believed so it must have been true” is requested.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

So long as that is the hypothesis, then the evidence that you presented is meaningless, as it does nothing to put a monkey wretch into what Christians actually believe. Now, if Christians were going around saying that Jesus rose naturally from the dead, then sure, highlight the fact that dead bodies will naturally decompose over time all you like. But that isn't what is being argued now, is it? No, it isn't.

Any hypothesis that conflicts with what is known of the real world IS subject to criticism for that reason UNLESS it can be SHOWN that supernatural influence was involved – something more than unverified stories and “they believed.”

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

I do not claim any knowledge of supernaturalism. If someone wishes to claim that a supernatural event occurred, they are expected and required (in reasoned and honorable debate) to support their contention with evidence (not unverifiable stories).


So when it comes to the Resurrection, you have an agnostic viewpoint, correct? Lets put that on the record.

Excellent. I do not pretend to know what happened or didn't happen 2000 years ago.

When people claim to KNOW, I challenge their claims – exactly what I am doing here – asking for evidence that their hypothesis is correct.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Correction: I absolutely do not maintain that God or gods do not exist. If you were not so disinterested in reading the very clear statement of my position in signature, you would not repeatedly make that mistake.

Perhaps you think you are debating someone else.


That's why I said "if".

There is no reason to be unaware (or use “if”) when my position statement appears on every post. However, it could be accounted for as willful ignorance (deliberately ignoring what is clearly presented and unchallenged).

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

False dichotomy. I am not forced to choose between alternatives – but instead acknowledge that I don't know how life began and it has NOTHING to do with dead bodies coming back to life.


Well, the bottom line is, the argument for the Resurrection is based upon one of those options being necessarily true.

Again and again and again. Whether or not a dead body came back to life is NOT related to “how life began”. That is a separate topic (that can be discussed in its own thread if desired).

Can you not debate the “resurrection” claim on its own merits – without attempting to expand the topic to “how life began”?

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Kindly provide verifiable evidence that supernaturalism and absence of decomposition actually, literally occurred.

You can't and you know you can't. The best you can do is “people believed”.


I've stated repeated that with any belief comes the REASON(S) for any belief. A belief, no matter how minuscule, is accompanied by a REASON for the belief.

People believe in witches and fairies too so there is REASON for them to believe. Right?

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

The disciples BELIEVED that Jesus had risen from the dead.

Thus, the argument in favor of a literal, actual, real “resurrection” is they believed (and I can think up reasons why they believed).

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Why would they BELIEVE this?

I do not pretend to know why anyone believes ANYTHING – let alone why people believed something 2000 years ago. I leave that pretending and speculating to others.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

So, you go over any given alternative as to why they would believe this, and you see which one of the alternatives have the most explanatory power that will explain the empty tomb, origin of the beliefs of former skeptics, like Paul, and James, etc.

I do not speculate about motivations of people – particularly those of ancient people.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

After you've exhausted everything, the explanation that withstands all scrutiny after careful examination...wins!!

Exhausted everything? The “explanation that withstands all scrutiny” for why people believed is that a corpus reanimated?

Do you apply that “reasoning” to Elvis sightings? If not, apply exactly the same scrutiny and alternative explanations to Jesus sightings. “They were mistaken”, “It was wishful thinking”, “It was someone else”, “Someone looked and acted like him”, etc, etc.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

And this subject has had a long history of debate, scrutiny, examination. It isn't anything new

Agreed.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

And what Christians believe is that the best explanation for all of these facts is that Jesus literally rose from the dead.

Yes, most Christians may believe that the best “explanation” for a claimed empty tomb is that the deceased came back to life and left.

To be consistent, do they apply that same explanation to other empty tombs? Thousands of empty tombs = thousands of “resurrections”?

If today we discover that a tomb is empty a few days after burial do we assume that the deceased reanimated and left?

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

I agree. The “resurrection” is a STORY told by ancient god worshipers.


Right,

Thank you

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

and the "story" of the cosmos was once that it was infinite/static, and that story was told by natural science worshippers.

Kindly attempt to stay with the topic being discussed, the “resurrection” – NOT how the cosmos originated. Attempting to evade by diverting is a transparent, and disreputable tactic.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

The problem is, they were wrong.

OH? You KNOW that “they are wrong”?

How, exactly, do you know that?

Is it because natural science conflicts with the ancient tales you choose to believe? Or, have you studied astrophysics thoroughly enough to be able to provide evidence of error?

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Ancient (and modern) god worshipers often believe(d) that supernatural forces are involved in storms, floods, diseases, crop failures, unfortunate (or fortunate) events, etc. Some believe(d) that their favorite supernatural entities are/were involved in daylight and darkness. Evidently many also believe(d) that dead bodies come back to life.


And?

And the tales go on and on – without verification that they are true – in spite of modern knowledge that provides evidence that storms, floods, diseases, crop failures are natural events that do not require supernatural “explanations”.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

I WOULD NOT attempt to verify something that happened in antiquity.


Yet, it looks to me like your OP was an attempt at verifying that it didn't happen..or at least make a case that it didn't happen.

My opening statement outlined what is known about processes that occur after death. It seems rational to consider what is known . . . all else is speculation.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Of course, as I keep pointing out, the attempt was far left field, but nevertheless, you attempted to make a case as to why it didn't /cant happen, which contradicts the above quote.

There is no contradiction in ASKING for evidence that a claimed event contradicted what is known of the real world.

So far “they believed” and “it was supernatural” is all that has been offered.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

I do not claim to know what happened “once upon a time in a land far away”


So basically, "I don't know what happened, but I know what DIDN'T happen." Trying to have your cake, and eat it too.

Correction: I make NO claim to know what did OR did not happen. I question and challenge claims that anyone KNOWS that a dead body came back to life.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

and do NOT base life decisions on ancient tales or accounts being accurate and truthful.


Right, you base your "life decisions" on different standards. So what?

So I am not dependent upon ancient tales being correct. Instead, I base decisions on what I can learn of the real world.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

I quote exactly what people who study such things conclude. If you wish to dispute their findings feel free to enter the field, do the research, and prove them wrong.


Their knowledge of human body decomposition after death doesn't in any way, shape, or form put any crack or dent in the case that a Christian makes for the Resurrection.

The “case” for resurrection is “they believed” and “there are stories”.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

I trust that readers are aware that stories told from person to person are not expected to be exact after decades or generations.


That depends. If the people from whom the story originally derived from were still alive as the story was told (decades) later, then they would have been around to derail any potential tarnishing of the message. And that is precisely what happened.

Thus, the story must be true because “I know that no one challenged it at the time”. Right?

The story was presented to people hundreds of miles away from where it is said to have occurred – while people living in the area, the Jews, REJECTED claims that Jesus “arose from the dead”.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

As Paul stated in 1Corin 15:6 "....most of whom are alive, though some have fallen asleep"...and he was talking about those whom Jesus had appeared to...and if 1Corinthians was written in the early-mid 50's AD, then that would mean that 20 years after the cross, most of Jesus' followers were still alive and would have been able to quell any embellishment of the Gospel.

So the telephone game won't work here, sir.

I am comfortable letting readers decide whether stories told and retold for decades or generations are likely to be accurate and reliable in detail and to-the-word correct.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Is it difficult to admit that professional historians in general and the history profession do NOT regard as truthful and accurate stories about supernatural characters and events?


Yes it is difficult. Guys like Gary Habermas and Mike Licona are professional historians and they are both believers...while guys like Richard Carrier and Bart Erhman are professional historians, yet, they AREN'T believers.

So wouldn't that mean that it depends?

Do Habermas and Licona maintain that supernatural tales about supernatural characters and events OTHER than those of the Bible are truthful and accurate? Do they (historians in general) accept tales about magical feats by Thor, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, Vishnu (or whoever) are true and accurate?

Readers are quite likely to know that such tales are regarded as myths.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Evasion is not likely to go unnoticed by readers – most of whom, I trust, are aware that historians do NOT accept stories of supernatural characters and events as literal truth.


Evasion? Ha. As I just proved above, it is subjective.

Again, do professional historians or the history professional literature / studies regard supernatural tales in general as being truthful and accurate? I am not asking if some are Christians.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Historians who happen to be Christians MAY accept bible supernatural characters and tales, but are unlikely to accept similar tales from competing religions.


I didn't know that quantity had anything to do with it. Above, you made it seem as if the majority consensus is that most professional historians do NOT accept stories of supernatural characters.

I stand by that statement as my position.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Now, unless you have some sort of statistical data that will place the statement in your favor, then you don't really know, do you?

Rather than statistical data I trust readers' discernment to recognize that historians do not accept as truthful and accurate claims made about characters and events from Norse, Egyptian, Irish, Greek, Roman, etc tales.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

I do not disagree with the first two


If you don't agree that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure, then you are in the minority, my friend.

Notice “I do not disagree”. Does that need simplification?

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Correction: You have unverified TALES about burial and an empty tomb.


Well again, I need to know your standard for what can be considered "verified". Because from what we (believers) can see, it IS verified.

By “verified” I mean shown to be true and accurate. “They believed” does not meet my minimum requirements for verification – though that may be compelling “evidence” to others.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Paul/Saul admittedly never met Jesus but learned from a “vision” (or hallucination or delusion or fantasy or whatever it was).


So if you take away Paul's own testimony of an "appearance" of Jesus, you still have a contemporary person to Jesus/apostles regarding what the apostles believed in this beginning stage of the movement.

Again and again and again – “They believed” is presented as evidence that something occurred.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Back to “they believed”


And we are also back to the reasons "why" they would believe such a thing.

Correction: You (not we) are speculating about reasons why people 2000 years ago believed something. I do not pretend to know such things and do not care to speculate or to base a position on speculation.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Feel free to elaborate.


I think I meant to say "other" reasons. I forgot what point was being made there. Haha.

Other evidence supporting the “resurrection” claim was mentioned and is requested.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Exactly. It also cannot be known with certainty if what was written was accurate and truthful.


We don't know with 100% certainty. But we can give it a good 60-70% certainty.

How is that 60-70% derived?

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Therefore, it would be foolish to maintain that we KNOW something is accurate and truthful.


But yet you seemed certain in your response with the whole "John Hanson" thing earlier, when you only "know" him based on what you've read about him. I guess it is only time to put on our cape and play the "Super Skeptic"s role, only when it comes to Bible stuff.

I read multiple, disconnected sources of information that include easily verified official government records and independent / disconnected sources. I do NOT depend upon a single source.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

But when it comes to anything else in history, you practically accept it with no questions asked.

Kindly abstain from saying what I “practically accept it with no questions asked”. Stay with what I actually say / present.

That is NOT my position. I emphasize verification. If the presidency issue was only reported in a single source, I would not accept it as truthful and accurate. Is it too difficult to address what I actually present so it becomes necessary to make up things that I did not convey?

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Taxi cab fallacy.

Au contraire – I am an equal opportunity “skeptic” – asking for verification regardless of origin. I do not accept “take my word for it (or his or this book)” about ANYTHING of importance.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

And the “best explanation” for an empty tomb is that the deceased came back to life and left and people believed that he did.


No, the best explanation for the empty tomb is that it was recorded by all four Gospels with the supposed earliest one, Mark, having the story...and of course, you can say "but the Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark", well guess what, the author of John didn't, and it also contains the empty tomb narrative.

Exactly. The supposed “best explanation” for an empty tomb is that the deceased came back to life and left – because four people said so.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

So at worse, there are two independent books which attest to the empty tomb, and I know you have a problem accepting Biblical evidences, but hey, life isn't fair, is it?

“Independent writings” selected by believers.

Other writings of the era by Christians did NOT accept the “resurrection” story. An interesting read on the topic of diversity of early Christian beliefs / teachings http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/diversity.html

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Second, it would be extremely difficult to get the Christian faith off of the ground when you are running around crying about an alleged physical Resurrection of a man, if his physical body in fact still lay in the tomb.

Exactly. Unless some “miracle” could be claimed, Christianity has no basis (as various Christian leaders have acknowledged).

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Third, the empty tomb was discovered by women, and women's testimony was unreliable in that culture...

So goes the tale

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

and if the story was simply made up by Jewish men, they certainly wouldn't have placed women in the narrative as the discovers of the empty tomb and deliverers of the message that he had risen.

Jews reject the notion of “resurrection”. The story is told by advocates of the new, competing religion that became known as Christianity, to people living hundreds of miles from the site of claimed events.

It is not inconceivable that stories evolved regarding a deceased preacher, perhaps by wishful thinking rather than outright fraud (though the latter is not inconceivable).

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Yes, I am saying that according to accounts, tales of “resurrection” originated from followers.

Do you dispute that?


No.

Thus, the “evidence” is that believers believed and believers / followers told stories. Modern believers believe the stories – in spite of the lack of verification from disconnected / independent sources.

Did any source outside the gospel tales say “Jesus arose from the dead and appeared to people”? OR was the greatest event in human history (according to some) NOT reported by anyone other than those promoting the story?

Notice anything fishy about all that? Or shall we go for it "hook, line and sinker"?
Back to top
Like this post
View user's profile   
For_The_Kingdom Offline
Under Probation
Sage
Joined: 05 May 2016
Total posts: 656
Gender: Undisclosed

635.63 tokens
MPG Recipient Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 13: Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:59 am  Re: Did the Resurrection of Jesus literally occur as claimed Reply

Zzyzx wrote:

.
[Replying to post 11 by For_The_Kingdom]


Thanks for the reply. We have found some common ground (or background) -- and a few areas of agreement.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

.Your total argument so far is that 2000 years ago some people are said to have believed that an empty tomb = corpus came back to life and left; and that they believed that they had seen the deceased alive afterward.


Yes, which I am basing upon the testimony of two guys (Paul and Luke) that was living at the time and geographical location of the events in question.

Thus, if two (or four) GIs stationed in Ft. Campbell claim that they saw General William Westmoreland coming out of a bar in Hopkinsville or Clarksville in 2010 (even though he died in 2005) their accounts are believable because they were living in that time and place. Right?

Personal note: He was the new commander of the 101st when I arrived at Campbell in 1958 (both verifiable with official Army documentation).

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

You claim this is the best explanation for the storied events and evidence that the “resurrection” actually, literally occurred.


There is more to it than that, but in a nut shell, yes.

“They believed so it must be true” is a very weak argument upon which to base a belief system. Most of us are aware that people often believe things they are told that is dead wrong, deceitful, fabrication, fantasy. Right?

Belief without substantiation is known as gullibility or naviete.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

That “argument” may appeal to those who already believe the story. However, it depends upon a claim that “supernatural miracles happen” and that the Bible is authoritative and proof of truth. Those assumptions are NOT made under the terms to which we agreed to debate (C&A Guidelines apply and Bible is not authoritative or proof of truth).


As long as I can articulate why the Bible is true/accurate when it comes to the topic of discussion, then Bible needs to be at least considered, or "put on trial".

That is exactly what is being done here.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

This automatic dismissal of the Bible thing you have going on is an act of prejudice, and is quite frankly, bullshit.

The Bible should not be “automatically” dismissed or accepted. Its claims and stories should be examined for truthfulness and accuracy.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

You insist on bringing up the origin of life – which has NOTHING to do with dead bodies coming back to life, AND falsely assume that I support abiogenesis (when my actual position is that I have no idea how life began). Again, however, that has nothing to do with the debate and is nothing more than a red herring / straw man.

I trust that very few readers are fooled by evasive tactics masquerading as debate.


Ok, well anything related to science or nature has no part in this debate, then.

You may wish

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Because your mentioning of human body decomposition also HAS NOTHING to do with the Christian hypothesis of God SUPERNATURALLY raising Jesus from the dead...and since you based your entire OP on human body decomposition, you shouldn't be the one to accuse anyone of a straw man tactic, when the entire debate began with a straw man, on your part.

I see. Religious tales need not reflect real-world conditions at all because they are supernatural tales . . . .

Thus, if a different religion claims that someone went to heaven on a winged horse, the “scientific” knowledge that winged horses do not exist has NOTHING to do with the story. Right?

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Over and over, people believing something does NOT indicate it is true.


Straw man. I never stated nor implied that "Because they believed it, therefore, it is true". Again, it is much more of a thorough analysis than that, which I tried to emphasize in prior posts, which apparently isn't getting through.

What has been presented that does NOT depend upon accepting what others believed?

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

I know you would like for the Christian case for the Resurrection to be that simple, just so you can debunk such faulty logic/reasoning with ease. But however, it isn't that simple. We won't make it that easy for you.

Present the evidence whenever you are ready. “They believed” has worn thin.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

I make many life decisions – none of which involve any of the thousands of “gods” proposed, worshiped, loved, feared, fought over by proponents.


So, basically, you are exercising a freedom of the will to not evolve your life decisions around any deities. Cool.

I do not recognize “free will” or “freedom of will” but recognize that my decisions are based upon constraints of the real world and the culture within which I live.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Yes, Christianity spread throughout the Roman empire when it was adopted as official, state-sanctioned religion of the empire.


That didn't take place until the 3rd century AD. We are talking about first century stuff here, which is the mass spread of the Christian faith, which took place in the mid first century AD.

Paul/Saul and associates were evidently effective promoters. Something need not be true in order to become popular.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

That certainly does not prove that a “resurrection” occurred.


I agree, it doesn't, which is why I never claimed that it did.

Okay. What reasons are there to accept the “resurrection” tale OTHER than the stories and beliefs of promoters of that idea?

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

People of that era were evidently quite prone to believe supernatural tales to account for what they did not understand of the environment and events.


Genetic fallacy.

Correction: A genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.

The “resurrection” tale is here not accepted (rejected) because it is not supported by verifiable evidence from disconnected sources – not because people believed supernatural tales. However, it is being DEFENDED by claims “they believed”. Is that a generic fallacy?

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

I am an Army vet from before Vietnam – enlisted 101st Airborne Division 1958 to 1961. I have some memory of events that occurred during those years BUT would certainly not claim to have total recall. I would guess that I remember only perhaps 2% or 5% of events – and do NOT remember exact words of conversations.


I am also an Army vet, OIF - enlisted 82nd Airborne Division (07-08) and 101st Aviation Division (10-12) [Fort Huachuca in between times 08-10]. And I served 7 months in Iraq.

Thank you for your service, sir.

Same to you

Do you maintain that twenty or thirty years from now you will be able to write an account of exactly what happened during those years – accurate to detail – and quote exactly speeches / talks by leaders – accurate to the word?

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

But again, some people have better memory than others, right?

Yes – and all the gospel writers and their sources of information (whatever those might have been) had excellent memory – enough to quote extensively and with complete accuracy words spoken decades earlier.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Additionally, I realize that memories are NOT infallible – and are subject to distortion over time.


Yeah, but apparently, everyone seemed to remember the same thing.

“Everyone”?

Four accounts were selected by church officials long after the events (perhaps because they harmonized with what those officials wanted included in church doctrine?).

The accounts do NOT show that they remembered the same thing about 1) who arrived at the tomb, 2) how many men or angels were present, 3) who told what to whom, 4) where and when people claim to have seen the deceased.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Correction: Evidence HAS been presented to show that dead bodies do not come back to life.


Sir, with all due respect, do you have a hard time distinguishing the difference between the concepts of natural/supernatural? You presented evidence that dead bodies do not NATURALLY rise from the dead. Fine. I agree with you 100% on that fact.

Thank you

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

But the hypothesis isn't that Jesus rose naturally from the dead, it is that God raised Jesus from the dead (supernaturally).

Exactly. The CLAIM that supernaturalism was involved is challenged here. Evidence beyond “they believed so it must have been true” is requested.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

So long as that is the hypothesis, then the evidence that you presented is meaningless, as it does nothing to put a monkey wretch into what Christians actually believe. Now, if Christians were going around saying that Jesus rose naturally from the dead, then sure, highlight the fact that dead bodies will naturally decompose over time all you like. But that isn't what is being argued now, is it? No, it isn't.

Any hypothesis that conflicts with what is known of the real world IS subject to criticism for that reason UNLESS it can be SHOWN that supernatural influence was involved – something more than unverified stories and “they believed.”

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

I do not claim any knowledge of supernaturalism. If someone wishes to claim that a supernatural event occurred, they are expected and required (in reasoned and honorable debate) to support their contention with evidence (not unverifiable stories).


So when it comes to the Resurrection, you have an agnostic viewpoint, correct? Lets put that on the record.

Excellent. I do not pretend to know what happened or didn't happen 2000 years ago.

When people claim to KNOW, I challenge their claims – exactly what I am doing here – asking for evidence that their hypothesis is correct.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Correction: I absolutely do not maintain that God or gods do not exist. If you were not so disinterested in reading the very clear statement of my position in signature, you would not repeatedly make that mistake.

Perhaps you think you are debating someone else.


That's why I said "if".

There is no reason to be unaware (or use “if”) when my position statement appears on every post. However, it could be accounted for as willful ignorance (deliberately ignoring what is clearly presented and unchallenged).

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

False dichotomy. I am not forced to choose between alternatives – but instead acknowledge that I don't know how life began and it has NOTHING to do with dead bodies coming back to life.


Well, the bottom line is, the argument for the Resurrection is based upon one of those options being necessarily true.

Again and again and again. Whether or not a dead body came back to life is NOT related to “how life began”. That is a separate topic (that can be discussed in its own thread if desired).

Can you not debate the “resurrection” claim on its own merits – without attempting to expand the topic to “how life began”?

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Kindly provide verifiable evidence that supernaturalism and absence of decomposition actually, literally occurred.

You can't and you know you can't. The best you can do is “people believed”.


I've stated repeated that with any belief comes the REASON(S) for any belief. A belief, no matter how minuscule, is accompanied by a REASON for the belief.

People believe in witches and fairies too so there is REASON for them to believe. Right?

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

The disciples BELIEVED that Jesus had risen from the dead.

Thus, the argument in favor of a literal, actual, real “resurrection” is they believed (and I can think up reasons why they believed).

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Why would they BELIEVE this?

I do not pretend to know why anyone believes ANYTHING – let alone why people believed something 2000 years ago. I leave that pretending and speculating to others.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

So, you go over any given alternative as to why they would believe this, and you see which one of the alternatives have the most explanatory power that will explain the empty tomb, origin of the beliefs of former skeptics, like Paul, and James, etc.

I do not speculate about motivations of people – particularly those of ancient people.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

After you've exhausted everything, the explanation that withstands all scrutiny after careful examination...wins!!

Exhausted everything? The “explanation that withstands all scrutiny” for why people believed is that a corpus reanimated?

Do you apply that “reasoning” to Elvis sightings? If not, apply exactly the same scrutiny and alternative explanations to Jesus sightings. “They were mistaken”, “It was wishful thinking”, “It was someone else”, “Someone looked and acted like him”, etc, etc.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

And this subject has had a long history of debate, scrutiny, examination. It isn't anything new

Agreed.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

And what Christians believe is that the best explanation for all of these facts is that Jesus literally rose from the dead.

Yes, most Christians may believe that the best “explanation” for a claimed empty tomb is that the deceased came back to life and left.

To be consistent, do they apply that same explanation to other empty tombs? Thousands of empty tombs = thousands of “resurrections”?

If today we discover that a tomb is empty a few days after burial do we assume that the deceased reanimated and left?

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

I agree. The “resurrection” is a STORY told by ancient god worshipers.


Right,

Thank you

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

and the "story" of the cosmos was once that it was infinite/static, and that story was told by natural science worshippers.

Kindly attempt to stay with the topic being discussed, the “resurrection” – NOT how the cosmos originated. Attempting to evade by diverting is a transparent, and disreputable tactic.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

The problem is, they were wrong.

OH? You KNOW that “they are wrong”?

How, exactly, do you know that?

Is it because natural science conflicts with the ancient tales you choose to believe? Or, have you studied astrophysics thoroughly enough to be able to provide evidence of error?

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Ancient (and modern) god worshipers often believe(d) that supernatural forces are involved in storms, floods, diseases, crop failures, unfortunate (or fortunate) events, etc. Some believe(d) that their favorite supernatural entities are/were involved in daylight and darkness. Evidently many also believe(d) that dead bodies come back to life.


And?

And the tales go on and on – without verification that they are true – in spite of modern knowledge that provides evidence that storms, floods, diseases, crop failures are natural events that do not require supernatural “explanations”.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

I WOULD NOT attempt to verify something that happened in antiquity.


Yet, it looks to me like your OP was an attempt at verifying that it didn't happen..or at least make a case that it didn't happen.

My opening statement outlined what is known about processes that occur after death. It seems rational to consider what is known . . . all else is speculation.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Of course, as I keep pointing out, the attempt was far left field, but nevertheless, you attempted to make a case as to why it didn't /cant happen, which contradicts the above quote.

There is no contradiction in ASKING for evidence that a claimed event contradicted what is known of the real world.

So far “they believed” and “it was supernatural” is all that has been offered.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

I do not claim to know what happened “once upon a time in a land far away”


So basically, "I don't know what happened, but I know what DIDN'T happen." Trying to have your cake, and eat it too.

Correction: I make NO claim to know what did OR did not happen. I question and challenge claims that anyone KNOWS that a dead body came back to life.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

and do NOT base life decisions on ancient tales or accounts being accurate and truthful.


Right, you base your "life decisions" on different standards. So what?

So I am not dependent upon ancient tales being correct. Instead, I base decisions on what I can learn of the real world.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

I quote exactly what people who study such things conclude. If you wish to dispute their findings feel free to enter the field, do the research, and prove them wrong.


Their knowledge of human body decomposition after death doesn't in any way, shape, or form put any crack or dent in the case that a Christian makes for the Resurrection.

The “case” for resurrection is “they believed” and “there are stories”.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

I trust that readers are aware that stories told from person to person are not expected to be exact after decades or generations.


That depends. If the people from whom the story originally derived from were still alive as the story was told (decades) later, then they would have been around to derail any potential tarnishing of the message. And that is precisely what happened.

Thus, the story must be true because “I know that no one challenged it at the time”. Right?

The story was presented to people hundreds of miles away from where it is said to have occurred – while people living in the area, the Jews, REJECTED claims that Jesus “arose from the dead”.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

As Paul stated in 1Corin 15:6 "....most of whom are alive, though some have fallen asleep"...and he was talking about those whom Jesus had appeared to...and if 1Corinthians was written in the early-mid 50's AD, then that would mean that 20 years after the cross, most of Jesus' followers were still alive and would have been able to quell any embellishment of the Gospel.

So the telephone game won't work here, sir.

I am comfortable letting readers decide whether stories told and retold for decades or generations are likely to be accurate and reliable in detail and to-the-word correct.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Is it difficult to admit that professional historians in general and the history profession do NOT regard as truthful and accurate stories about supernatural characters and events?


Yes it is difficult. Guys like Gary Habermas and Mike Licona are professional historians and they are both believers...while guys like Richard Carrier and Bart Erhman are professional historians, yet, they AREN'T believers.

So wouldn't that mean that it depends?

Do Habermas and Licona maintain that supernatural tales about supernatural characters and events OTHER than those of the Bible are truthful and accurate? Do they (historians in general) accept tales about magical feats by Thor, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, Vishnu (or whoever) are true and accurate?

Readers are quite likely to know that such tales are regarded as myths.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Evasion is not likely to go unnoticed by readers – most of whom, I trust, are aware that historians do NOT accept stories of supernatural characters and events as literal truth.


Evasion? Ha. As I just proved above, it is subjective.

Again, do professional historians or the history professional literature / studies regard supernatural tales in general as being truthful and accurate? I am not asking if some are Christians.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Historians who happen to be Christians MAY accept bible supernatural characters and tales, but are unlikely to accept similar tales from competing religions.


I didn't know that quantity had anything to do with it. Above, you made it seem as if the majority consensus is that most professional historians do NOT accept stories of supernatural characters.

I stand by that statement as my position.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Now, unless you have some sort of statistical data that will place the statement in your favor, then you don't really know, do you?

Rather than statistical data I trust readers' discernment to recognize that historians do not accept as truthful and accurate claims made about characters and events from Norse, Egyptian, Irish, Greek, Roman, etc tales.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

I do not disagree with the first two


If you don't agree that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure, then you are in the minority, my friend.

Notice “I do not disagree”. Does that need simplification?

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Correction: You have unverified TALES about burial and an empty tomb.


Well again, I need to know your standard for what can be considered "verified". Because from what we (believers) can see, it IS verified.

By “verified” I mean shown to be true and accurate. “They believed” does not meet my minimum requirements for verification – though that may be compelling “evidence” to others.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Paul/Saul admittedly never met Jesus but learned from a “vision” (or hallucination or delusion or fantasy or whatever it was).


So if you take away Paul's own testimony of an "appearance" of Jesus, you still have a contemporary person to Jesus/apostles regarding what the apostles believed in this beginning stage of the movement.

Again and again and again – “They believed” is presented as evidence that something occurred.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Back to “they believed”


And we are also back to the reasons "why" they would believe such a thing.

Correction: You (not we) are speculating about reasons why people 2000 years ago believed something. I do not pretend to know such things and do not care to speculate or to base a position on speculation.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Feel free to elaborate.


I think I meant to say "other" reasons. I forgot what point was being made there. Haha.

Other evidence supporting the “resurrection” claim was mentioned and is requested.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Exactly. It also cannot be known with certainty if what was written was accurate and truthful.


We don't know with 100% certainty. But we can give it a good 60-70% certainty.

How is that 60-70% derived?

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Therefore, it would be foolish to maintain that we KNOW something is accurate and truthful.


But yet you seemed certain in your response with the whole "John Hanson" thing earlier, when you only "know" him based on what you've read about him. I guess it is only time to put on our cape and play the "Super Skeptic"s role, only when it comes to Bible stuff.

I read multiple, disconnected sources of information that include easily verified official government records and independent / disconnected sources. I do NOT depend upon a single source.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

But when it comes to anything else in history, you practically accept it with no questions asked.

Kindly abstain from saying what I “practically accept it with no questions asked”. Stay with what I actually say / present.

That is NOT my position. I emphasize verification. If the presidency issue was only reported in a single source, I would not accept it as truthful and accurate. Is it too difficult to address what I actually present so it becomes necessary to make up things that I did not convey?

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Taxi cab fallacy.

Au contraire – I am an equal opportunity “skeptic” – asking for verification regardless of origin. I do not accept “take my word for it (or his or this book)” about ANYTHING of importance.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

And the “best explanation” for an empty tomb is that the deceased came back to life and left and people believed that he did.


No, the best explanation for the empty tomb is that it was recorded by all four Gospels with the supposed earliest one, Mark, having the story...and of course, you can say "but the Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark", well guess what, the author of John didn't, and it also contains the empty tomb narrative.

Exactly. The supposed “best explanation” for an empty tomb is that the deceased came back to life and left – because four people said so.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

So at worse, there are two independent books which attest to the empty tomb, and I know you have a problem accepting Biblical evidences, but hey, life isn't fair, is it?

“Independent writings” selected by believers.

Other writings of the era by Christians did NOT accept the “resurrection” story. An interesting read on the topic of diversity of early Christian beliefs / teachings http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/diversity.html

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Second, it would be extremely difficult to get the Christian faith off of the ground when you are running around crying about an alleged physical Resurrection of a man, if his physical body in fact still lay in the tomb.

Exactly. Unless some “miracle” could be claimed, Christianity has no basis (as various Christian leaders have acknowledged).

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Third, the empty tomb was discovered by women, and women's testimony was unreliable in that culture...

So goes the tale

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

and if the story was simply made up by Jewish men, they certainly wouldn't have placed women in the narrative as the discovers of the empty tomb and deliverers of the message that he had risen.

Jews reject the notion of “resurrection”. The story is told by advocates of the new, competing religion that became known as Christianity, to people living hundreds of miles from the site of claimed events.

It is not inconceivable that stories evolved regarding a deceased preacher, perhaps by wishful thinking rather than outright fraud (though the latter is not inconceivable).

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:

Yes, I am saying that according to accounts, tales of “resurrection” originated from followers.

Do you dispute that?


No.

Thus, the “evidence” is that believers believed and believers / followers told stories. Modern believers believe the stories – in spite of the lack of verification from disconnected / independent sources.

Did any source outside the gospel tales say “Jesus arose from the dead and appeared to people”? OR was the greatest event in human history (according to some) NOT reported by anyone other than those promoting the story?

Notice anything fishy about all that? Or shall we go for it "hook, line and sinker"?


You win. I forfeit.
Back to top
Like this post
View user's profile   
Zzyzx 
Site Supporter
Savant

58443.57 tokens
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 14: Thu Sep 08, 2016 12:56 pm  Re: Did the Resurrection of Jesus literally occur as claimed Reply

.
[Replying to post 13 by For_The_Kingdom]


This is the first time I can recall anyone making that statement . . .

However, FtK, my objective is NOT to “win” but rather to encourage people / readers to think about what they / we have been taught and to ask for verification – not just about religion, but about EVERYTHING.

Much of the “information” or “truth” we encounter is faulty, distorted, incorrect, incomplete, or downright false. We need a built-in lie detector (or distortion-detector) – and have that partially available when we think critically / analytically / rationally, and consistently ask for verification.

Politics and history are rife with misrepresented “facts” as are the world's thousands of religions. The US schooling system, which masquerades as education (the terms are NOT synonymous) perpetuates a great deal of misinformation – generation after generation – and does not (usually) emphasize critical / analytical thinking or decision-making; which are two of the most important life skills.

Vested interests (power and money) do NOT want the public to be well informed or to think critically / analytically – but prefer that citizens accept what they are told by those in “authority”. Teachers, preachers and parents often or usually reinforce the tend with emphasis on conformity.

Our debates may be illuminating for some people. Thank you for your participation.
Back to top
Like this post
View user's profile   
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Head-to-head All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2
Facebook
Tweet

 






Hymn Lyrics Plus

On The Web | Ecodia | Facebook | Twitter


Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.


Mobile   |  Lo-Fi Version