|Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2016 5:50 pm Did the Resurrection of Jesus literally occur as claimed in|
Did the Resurrection of Jesus literally occur as claimed in the Bible?
Following death human bodies decompose
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).
Post 11: Sun Sep 04, 2016 11:25 pm
Re: Did the Resurrection of Jesus literally occur as claimed
Like this post
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.
There is more to it than that, but in a nut shell, yes.
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.
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.
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.
So, basically, you are exercising a freedom of the will to not evolve your life decisions around any deities. Cool.
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.
I agree, it doesn't, which is why I never claimed that it did.
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?
Yeah, but apparently, everyone seemed to remember the same thing.
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.
So when it comes to the Resurrection, you have an agnostic viewpoint, correct? Lets put that on the record.
That's why I said "if".
Well, the bottom line is, the argument for the Resurrection is based upon one of those options being necessarily true.
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.
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.
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.
So basically, "I don't know what happened, but I know what DIDN'T happen." Trying to have your cake, and eat it too.
Right, you base your "life decisions" on different standards. So what?
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.
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.
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?
Evasion? Ha. As I just proved above, it is subjective.
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?
If you don't agree that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure, then you are in the minority, my friend.
Well again, I need to know your standard for what can be considered "verified". Because from what we (believers) can see, it IS verified.
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.
And we are also back to the reasons "why" they would believe such a thing.
I think I meant to say "other" reasons. I forgot what point was being made there. Haha.
We don't know with 100% certainty. But we can give it a good 60-70% certainty.
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.
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.
Post 12: Mon Sep 05, 2016 12:56 pm
Re: Did the Resurrection of Jesus literally occur as claimed
Like this post
[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.
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).
“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.
That is exactly what is being done here.
The Bible should not be “automatically” dismissed or accepted. Its claims and stories should be examined for truthfulness and accuracy.
You may wish
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?
What has been presented that does NOT depend upon accepting what others believed?
Present the evidence whenever you are ready. “They believed” has worn thin.
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.
Paul/Saul and associates were evidently effective promoters. Something need not be true in order to become popular.
Okay. What reasons are there to accept the “resurrection” tale OTHER than the stories and beliefs of promoters of that idea?
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?
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?
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.
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.
Exactly. The CLAIM that supernaturalism was involved is challenged here. Evidence beyond “they believed so it must have been true” is requested.
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.”
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.
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).
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”?
People believe in witches and fairies too so there is REASON for them to believe. Right?
Thus, the argument in favor of a literal, actual, real “resurrection” is they believed (and I can think up reasons why they believed).
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.
I do not speculate about motivations of people – particularly those of ancient people.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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”.
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.
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.
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.
So I am not dependent upon ancient tales being correct. Instead, I base decisions on what I can learn of the real world.
The “case” for resurrection is “they believed” and “there are stories”.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
I stand by that statement as my position.
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.
Notice “I do not disagree”. Does that need simplification?
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.
Again and again and again – “They believed” is presented as evidence that something occurred.
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.
Other evidence supporting the “resurrection” claim was mentioned and is requested.
How is that 60-70% derived?
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.
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?
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.
Exactly. The supposed “best explanation” for an empty tomb is that the deceased came back to life and left – because four people said so.
“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
Exactly. Unless some “miracle” could be claimed, Christianity has no basis (as various Christian leaders have acknowledged).
So goes the tale
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).
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"?
Post 13: Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:59 am
Re: Did the Resurrection of Jesus literally occur as claimed
Like this post
You win. I forfeit.
Post 14: Thu Sep 08, 2016 12:56 pm
Re: Did the Resurrection of Jesus literally occur as claimed
Like this post
[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..