Is the Resurrurredction really a historical fact, or not?

[polonius]

In Paul’s oldest and first epistle, written in 51-52 AD, he states without qualification that:

“Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,* will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.g17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together* with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.� 1 Thes 4:15-17

But it didn’t happen. Thus we must conclude that either Paul or the Lord were incorrect.

How much else of what Paul told us is also incorrect?

Recall, it was Paul who reported the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 written about 53-57 AD.

Was his story historically correct (did it actually happen) or is it just a story that was used by and embellished by the writers of the New Testament?

Since the basis of Christian belief is the historical fact of the Resurrection, let’s examine the evidence and see if the Resurrection really happened or can an analysis of the story show that it is improbable if not impossible.

Opinions?

[Claire Evans]

Why would a person who had no idea what a god could be in the first place attribute that to something supernatural? How would they know what the supernatural was in the first place? When we imagine, it's due to things that have been observed before.

For the answer to this, we turn to psychology:
Human beings explain features of the world around them in two very different ways. For example, we sometimes appeal to natural causes or laws in order to account for an event. Why did that apple fall from the tree? Because the wind blew and shook the branch, causing the apple to fall. Why did the water freeze in the pipes last night, because the temperature of the water fell below zero, and it is a law that water freezes below zero.

However, we also explain by appealing to agents - beings who act on the basis of their beliefs and desires in a more or less rational way. Why did the apple fall from the tree? Because Ted wanted to eat it, believed that shaking the tree would make it fall, and so shook the tree. Why are Mary's car keys on the mantelpiece? Because she wanted to remind herself not to forget them, so put them where she thought she would spot them.

Barrett suggests we have evolved to be overly sensitive to agency. We evolved in an environment containing many agents - family members, friends, rivals, predators, prey, and so on. Spotting and understanding other agents helps us survive and reproduce. So we evolved to be sensitive to them - oversensitive in fact. Hear a rustle in the bushes behind you and you instinctively spin round, looking for an agent. Most times, there's no one there - just the wind in the leaves. But, in the environment in which we evolved, on those few occasions when there was an agent present, detecting it might well save your life. Far better to avoid several imaginary predators than be eaten by a real one. Thus evolution will select for an inheritable tendency to not just detect - but over detect - agency. We have evolved to possess (or, perhaps more plausibly, to be) hyper-active agency detectors.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/be ... ble-beings

But one can imagine several imaginary predators because predators have been seen before. Consider this. If you were an ancient person who heard thunder, would you think it could have been a bomb when it actually wasn't detonated? Absolutely not. You have no clue what a bomb is. It didn't exist. Therefore it could never have crossed your mind. So you can't imagine one was there. Your example does not delve into beliefs in things that don't exist.

How beliefs in gods came about can be explained by ancient people observing superior beings who identified themselves as gods. The things these gods do can be described by comparing it to what ancients already know of and that is natural phenomena. Say a god detonated a bomb. The ancients believed it sounded like thunder and a destructive storm that destroyed things. Therefore they can attribute these gods as the god of thunder and destruction.

No need. Imagination, ignorance and wishful thinking explain the gods just fine.

Oh, so you just dismiss other possibilities because it is convenient for you.

Convenience has nothing to do with it Claire. I acknowledge that imagination is all that is required for us to have all these competing god concepts. You however, interject angels, demons, devils and aliens as explanations. Why do you do this when imagination explains it just fine?

Let's put aside the supernatural part. Do you believe the FBI has a vivid imagination. From a declassified FBI report about aliens:

Here is a transcript of some of the most important details of the report:

1. Part of the disks carry crews; others are under remote control

2. Their mission is peaceful. The visitors contemplate settling on this plane

3. These visitors are human-like but much larger in size

4. They are not excarnate Earth people but come from their own world

5. They do NOT come from a planet as we use the word, but from an etheric planet which interpenetrates with our own and is not perceptible to us

6. The bodies of the visitors, and the craft, automatically materialize on entering the vibratory rate of our dense matter

7. The disks posses a type of radiant energy or a ray, which will easily disintegrate any attacking ship. They reenter the etheric at will, and so simply disappear from our vision, without trace

8. The region from which they come is not the “astral plane�, but corresponds to the Lokas or Talas. Students of osoteric matters will understand these terms.

9. They probably can not be reached by radio, but probably can be by radar. if a signal system can be devised for that (apparatus)

http://www.ancient-code.com/the-fbi-adm ... -document/

So perhaps these ancient people observed what has been described above and that is how a belief in gods started.

But who says that only imagination is required?

Myself and Psychology Today.

You are just assuming that. This is confirmation bias. Let's say we had this lightning bolt technology and we went to another planet and primitive people were there. They had never seen our technology. If we discharged this lightning bolt, could they just not assume we are some sort of god who causes lightning like Zeus? And remember the gods weren't supernatural beings to the ancients. They were observed beings, like aliens, who were considered superior because of the technology. They weren't spirits in the sky.

Like I said, you interject all sorts of outlandish IMO alternatives rather than acknowledge that imagination is all that would be needed. I assume you believe in the human imagination. Please provide me with a reason to believe in aliens, demons, devils and angels.

Not according to the FBI. And I don't make this stuff up to attempt to explain anything. Sometimes just putting two and two together will suffice.

I'm posed with two scenarios.
1) People imagined the claim that Muhammad flew up to heaven on a horse.
2) Muhammad had alien technology at his disposal.
Which of these 2 do we know for a fact is a possible explanation?

Number 2 is far more likely:

"In an interview, Prince Badr revealed that Saudi Arabia is making rapid progress on a moonship. “We hired the very best Arabian engineers,� he said with a broad smile. “Many of them had been working for American spacecraft builders, and they knew many American secrets.�

When asked why Saudi Arabia needed a space program, he said, “We are indebted to the American Department of Homeland Security for discovering that when Mohammed undertook his famous Night Journey as described in Surah 17:1*, that “greatest and most distant mosque� which he visited to meet with Allah and receive his instruction was actually on the Moon. However, the Americans are planning to return to the Moon, this time to invade Allah’s own mosque.�

So I believe the white horse that Mohammed road represented a spacecraft. I believe this is what could really have happened.

http://amazingstoriesmag.com/2014/07/is ... om-easton/

It is not outlandish to think that people like Mohammed could have been in spacecrafts. We already know the FBI admits there are spacecraft with crews.

In fact, it is said the technology we had today is from aliens.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/681334- ... echnology/

Thank you Claire. Please continue offering as much of this as an explanation as possible.
Also from that site for our readers enjoyment:
"The aliens violated the pact, said Schneider, by taking more humans than agreed upon. A war with the aliens has been fought ever since. He said the aliens plan to take over Earth by 2029 and he called on the government to tell citizens what it knows."

Since you find that ludicrous, let's try again. You know of Robert Oppenheimer?

"...April 22, 1904 – February 18, 1967) was an American theoretical physicist, best known for his role as the scientific director of the Manhattan Project, the World War II effort to develop the first nuclear weapons, at the secret Los Alamos laboratory in New Mexico. He is famously refereed to as “the father of the atomic bomb�.At the Trinity test site in Los Alamos New Mexico he uttered the words :
“Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds�,

It is interesting that he called himself the "destroyer of worlds" because this is what is attributed to the Hindu God, Shiva. Why he said that is because he was influenced by Hindu philosophy.

"Oppenheimer, although raised in a Jewish environment, was deeply affected by Vedic philosophy.His brother said that Oppenheimer found the Bhagavad-Gita “very easy and quite marvellous… (and) was really taken by the charm and the general wisdom of the Bhagavad-Gita�.
Oppenheimer also claimed that, “access to the Vedas is the greatest privilege this century may claim over all previous centuries�
Remarkably he even once hinted at the possibility of weapons on par of the nuclear ones who was working on in previous eras, particularly those of the Ramayana and Mahabharata."

And:

While he was giving a lecture at Rochester University, during the question and answer period a student asked a question to which Oppenheimer gave a strangely qualified answer:
Student: “Was the bomb exploded at Alamogordo during the Manhattan Project the first one to be detonated?
Dr. Oppenheimer: “Well — yes. In modern times, of course.
Some people suggest that Oppenheimer was referring to the Brahm�stra weapon mentioned in the Mahabharata.The appreciation didn’t stop there. So much so he always gave the book (Bhagavad Gita) as a present to his friends and kept a copy on the shelf closest to his desk.

http://www.hinduhumanrights.info/the-bh ... r-weapons/

It can be surmised that technology we have today have been inspired by technology that existed in ancient times. And, of course, ancient people didn't have this technology so it can be assumed it was alien technology.

Like I said above, claim it was their god that did it. The benefit would be crediting such an impossible act to their god compared to another.

Except that didn't happen.

Right! My point. If it did happen, you couldn't just brush it under the rug and hope people wouldn't notice. A smart leader would take credit to show just how great their gods are or what have you.

Except that it didn't happen that any pagan claimed a resurrection of a person was due to their god after hearing about the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. If you hear no claim of it, you can't take the credit. I think you may have understood what I said.

What is this supposed to mean? That's not answering my question. The only beneficial thing for a pagan to accept Christianity was to avoid death, not glamorize their own gods.

I don't see a question to answer. You made the statement that pagans were forced to join Christianity. I agree, however, that black eye cannot be placed on me as I no longer force anyone to be a Christian.

But we aren't talking about you. You said it would be credible for a pagan to attribute Jesus' resurrection to their own god but that clearly was rejected. They were forced to convert. Because of the pagan's lack of belief in Jesus' resurrection, they have to insert pagan elements into Christian to try and lure them in.

So the claim wasn't believable to them but you suggest they could have stolen the resurrection story of the saints coming out of the tomb for their own?

I don't believe that the claim of the 500 was believable because 500 dead bodies getting up and walking around is only a claim found in the Bible. Therefore it cannot be trusted.

That's not the point. Why would they nick that story for themselves? They didn't believe that people would resurrect when a god resurrects.

How do you know the resurrection claims were not to be found credible in Jerusalem?

The Jews to this day still reject that it happened.

But of course they do. They don't want to admit anything that challenges their faith.

How on earth did the resurrection claim survive?

People starting a church based off the death of Jesus where said people offered reasons for being on this earth, somewhere to go when you die and a way to see your dead loved ones again. You know, basically the same things all religions offer us.

That is what Jews believe. They resurrect but they don't need Jesus to do so. So why tell ancient Jews need Jesus to resurrect when they had a resurrection belief prior to Jesus' resurrection?

So you can't see the link between the saint story and the OT prophecies? I didn't make that up. It's most likely a metaphor. Like I believe the demon possessed story was a metaphor for the Jewish Wars.

The story is outrageous. You must call it metaphor. However, it is not written as metaphor but as an actual event. Blame your holy book.

So? You don't think writers ever use metaphors? If I see a parallel of a story in the Bible and can see it ties in to a real event, then it is most likely a metaphor. Since when do pigs herd? They are in pens.

It is also prudent to note that even though the Bible says 40 days, it is actually not meant to be taken literally. It means a relatively long time. We have the theme of Jesus in the wilderness for 40 days, Moses fasting for 40 days and Noah being at sea for 40 days. It's symbolic.

What mechanism to you employ when reading the Bible that determines what is metaphor and what is not? Please be specific so I can start applying this said mechanism.

Do the research then come up up with your own conclusion. I mean, do you really think that all the above mentioned spent 40 days exactly what they were doing? It's the same with the Ascension.

You have no scripture to support your view. I suggest you reject it because it is nonsensical, but the words are in the Bible whether you like it or not.

I can't help it if you dismiss my very rational answer.

Your rational answer betrays the fact that the claim is in the Bible whether you like it or not. You just seem to recognize that it is outlandish, therefore your mechanism seems to be to just call it metaphor. How is the idea that Jesus resurrected any less outlandish? Perhaps the claims that Jesus rose from the dead are metaphor as well? If not, please explain why not if other claims in the Bible are just metaphor.

The claim of the resurrection would not have survived as a metaphor. People needed proof that Jesus rose from the dead.

Why couldn't all words in the different scriptures have been said? For example in Matthew 27:46-50

This is getting off topic. For all I know, the entire story is just a metaphor.

You asked. We know the crucifixion was definitely not a metaphor.

Yet you dismiss the rest of my comment which gives the context. Why?

Not sure what you mean. The point is that depending on the writer is what tells us how many women came to the tomb. NOT biblical consistency.

That's not the point. You are pointing out allegedly contradictions. We aren't discussing if angels exist or not.

I'm pointing out that the Bible is not clear about the quantity of angels. The number seems to vary from book to book, but for all I know, it's all metaphor anyways.

So what? Use reasoning. The point is that it is not said that there was only one angel. That cannot be assumed. So it doesn't contrary the claim of 2 angels.

Yes:

Matthew says no; the other three say yes.

You mean, you haven't detected any gods.

No. None of the god concepts available for belief have been detected to affect our reality.

To you, prayer is ineffective.

No. Scientific studies have shown prayer to the Christian god anyways to be ineffective. For all I know, prayers to Vishnu help, but I will doubt it until shown otherwise.

What? Show these studies.

To you, you think gods should help a team win. What makes this so?

Not to me Claire, to your favorite holy book:
- John 14:14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

That's a misinterpretation. Jesus was specifically specifically to the disciples, not to people in general. When they preached, Jesus promised to give them the power to succeed in their evangelism.

Do you know every person on this planet who have claimed to know spirits, and have refuted them?

Odd question... No, I don't know every person on this planet nor have I refuted all of them. What responsibility are you trying to place on me?

In other words, you can't close the possibility that they are telling the truth.

I am not talking about TV shows. I tend to be skeptical about paranormal investigators on TV. You see, if you are not aware of something, you somehow think it is not credible or doesn't exist.

Put your money where your mouth is Claire. Make me aware of the paranormal!

Do the research yourself. Get in contact with paranormal investigators or something.

So what does putting the gospel in writing decades later somehow negate the gospels?

This makes them less credible. It allowed for later stories to be added to the Bible like the ending of Mark and the Women at the Well story.

Less credible but not totally negating the gospels, you say? I'm glad you don't claim nothing in the Bible is credible.

Paul didn't make up the gospels. You'd think the early Church would have had a problem with made up things.

Please describe this early church you speak of. What time frame are you alluding to and who was heading up this church?

Right after Pentecost:

"The Holy Spirit appeared at Pentecost, ten days after the Ascension of Jesus, to the Apostles and disciples in the Upper Room, and inspired them to proclaim the faith (Acts 1:13-2:4). The Twelve Apostles at the Pentecost were Peter, Andrew, James and John, Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Nathaniel Bartholomew, James son of Alpheus, Jude Thaddeus, Simon the Zealot, and Matthias. There were about one hundred and twenty persons gathered together in the Upper Room. This community of disciples of Jesus was the beginning of our Church. The oral tradition of the Apostles was established in the infancy period of the Church, from the time of Jesus to the written Gospels. During this period the Christian faith was transmitted by word of mouth (Romans 10:14-15).

The Acts of the Apostles describes the emergence of Christianity beginning with the mission in Jerusalem and spreading throughout the Middle East and the Mediterranean world. St. Luke portrays the actions of the Apostles, focusing primarily on Peter, upon whom Jesus founded his Church, and Paul, who was converted when he saw the risen Christ. Acts describes Peter's early leadership and ministry, such as his powerful speeches in Jerusalem (Acts 2-5), the healings of Aeneas and Tabitha (Acts 9), his mission to the Gentiles and return to Jerusalem (Acts 10-12), and his presiding at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). Following his conversion (Acts 9:1-9), Paul first preached in Damascus, Syria, traveled to Arabia, and then returned to Damascus where he stayed for three years (Galatians 1:17-18). Peter and Paul met in Antioch (Galatians 2:11). Peter then went to Rome, while Paul made three missionary journeys from Antioch, traveling as far as Dalmatia or "Illyricum" (Romans 15:19). During Paul's second missionary journey (Acts 16:7-12), the Spirit of Jesus redirected Paul and Luke to Macedonia, a journey which was the first recorded introduction of Christianity into Europe! The Acts of the Apostles concludes with Paul's fourth missionary journey to Malta and Rome as a prisoner in chains."

http://www.jesuschristsavior.net/Church.html

Oral tradition is one way for a rumor about a man being resurrected to get spread.

So now you don't? Do you dismiss how they are transmitted? It's not a case of people whispering stories in other people's ears.

I don't understand what you are asking me. I'm pointing out that oral tradition is one way for rumors to start. Is oral tradition immune to starting rumors in your opinion?

No, oral tradition is not devoid of rumours but as I have mentioned, oral tradition was meticulously moderated by the Jews. A whole story of Jesus was never considered rumour.

Okay, so you don't dismiss it then. Great. Therefore stop being so sure the gospels only existed decades later.

That's not how this works. Show me that the gospels existed before we know they existed and then I will be sure. I'm aware of later additions to the gospels, and yet your wishful thinking has you believing that they were oral, and not just oral, but accurately so. As if additions only happened after it was written down and not while it was being orally told (if it was orally told at all that is).

Because the gospels were already established before Paul came onto the scene as I mentioned about the early Church. There is no oral tradition that is accurate from start to finish. Heck, even history books are very accurate. To me, it is only the crux of our belief, that is the death and resurrection of Jesus, that matters. I couldn't care less about later additions.

There must be great care in preserving papyrus. It was fragile and subject to decay especially due to humidity. It had to be preserved in wooden cylinders. Parchments were way to expensive and were used rarely.

I see, so that's why we have thousands upon thousands of ancient papyrus.

Because they were stored that way. I don't think the followers of Jesus could do that. Jesus, while one earth, was not that significant to write about. There were other miracle workers. It was only when Christianity took off that Jesus became very significant.

So we need to ask, who would have been in possession of any writings and how did they preserve it?

I'm not aware of any early Christian writings (talking gospels still here), are you?

You are asking why they didn't preserve any writings if there were some and I asked you how someone would have preserved it if there was.

I am not talking about whether what they are saying is truthful or not. I am saying how to detect when writings have been made based on oral tradition.

Great?!? Please show that the gospels were oral tradition. We both seem to agree that if they were, there is no assurance that they were truthful.

So you ignored my explanation for it how the words are arranged that indicate oral tradition.

Those lying pens of the scribes were in the OT.

Why do you choose to forget the ending of Mark and the Women at the Well story? These are New Testament forgeries Claire

.

Tell me more.

A book is the only way to spread the gospel worldwide. Oral tradition couldn't be sustained around the world.

This is a false statement if being made about an all powerful god.

Okay, tell me how God would that done it?

Wait, are you saying it's a fact? So know you suddenly believe the gospels aren't made up? You think there may have been no guards because of a fabrication, no?

No Claire, I'm just referencing the stories themselves. You could point out absurdities in the Spider Man comic without believing that they happened as told.

You said it is a fact that they had control of the body. A fact is something that is verified to be true and you deny it. I can't say it is a fact that Spider man climbs buildings. You should have said, according to the Bible, they had control over the body.

Yes, true. However, why? We need to understand that, in the Bible, Jesus' burial was not complete on the Friday evening (Matthew 16:1). If Jesus was not meant to be buried in the tomb, why on earth was He there in the first place? Couldn't they have embalmed in somewhere else?

The story itself tells us (now, whether or not the story can be trusted has not been establised). 'It was nigh at hand'.

First you say the disciples having the body is a fact and then you say it can't be trusted. Would do you mean, "It was nigh at hand"?

It would be asinine to think woman spreading a rumour would stick.

This rumor was rejected by the Jews in Jerusalem. It could be argued that it did not stick. Well, not until many decades later hundreds of miles from where the event was claimed to have taken place anyways.

Where is your proof that all Jews rejected Jesus in Jerusalem? Did all witness the resurrection? Were all of them truthful? We know it stuck. I don't know why you think oral tradition is not possible to have spread the gospels.

And they would not be worried about punishment from Pilate? Pilate didn't believe a resurrection would take place, but was afraid of the claim.

Correct. If the event didn't happen like it was reported to have happened many decades later, then the guards had nothing to fear.

It is not disputed that the tomb was empty. Would that have not been a problem for Pilate?

IMO, Paul created the religion.

And just lured in gullible people, including the disciples who knew Jesus had died.

I have not claimed that the disciples were gullible. For all I know, they may have actually thought a resurrection took place.

How would they have thought a resurrection took place if they were the ones to take Jesus' body to Galilee?

So you think that because a specific scribes with lying pens in the OT, suddenly makes NT liars? That's a bit of a stretch.

It is you that ignores the additions to the ending of Mark and the Women at the Well story, not I.

As I said, elaborate on that.

Do go on about how Joseph Smith had an alien encounter.

Don't dodge what I said. Do you believe the FBI is making up claims of aliens?

I think the FBI encourages people to come up with alien claims in order to distract from what is actually going on.

That as previously a classified document. That was not meant for public consumption. And what is really going on that they don't want the public to know?

Therefore, according to your logic, it just could not have happened. It doesn't matter that it may have been a cover up, it's just not true to you.

No, I'm not gullible. Show me that an alien craft crash landed or what have you and I will believe.

I must show you what happened at Roswell? What? I'm just going to ask you a question, yes or no: Do you believe it is possible that it was a cover-up?

Really? What would have happened to the disciple or Jesus had he not been buried that same day. Please enlighten me.

They respected the scriptures. Anyone, carrying around a corpse in public with angry people would have been scary enough.

This does not tell me what would happen to them like I asked. If nothing would have happened, then why would they really care if bigger things were going on?

Peter was scared to be associated with Jesus lest he be put to death. Now suddenly he doesn't care? Would he risk being beaten to death, no?

No silly, they would have avoided any angry crowds.

How???

Covering the decomposing body with plenty of spices and covering it to keep it out of site.

It's bad enough that they would have broken the Sabbath. There was a risk that Jesus body could have been destroyed by angry people. Why risk that?

So the bodies symbolically went into the holy city and appeared to many people. Is more alien tech involved with this claim?

If you are not going to behave in a mature manner, then what is the point of debating?

If you find the alien tech explanation to be childish, then stop offering them up as explanations. More importantly, you failed to address my actual point twice in a row now.
This time you failed to address: So the bodies symbolically went into the holy city and appeared to many people?
How do bodies symbolically do this?

You mentioned the alien tech in a condescending way. Admit it.

I didn't say they symbolically went there. It didn't happen. It was a metaphor.

[polonius]

Clownboat wrote:

This time you failed to address: So the bodies symbolically went into the holy city and appeared to many people?
How do bodies symbolically do this?

You mentioned the alien tech in a condescending way. Admit it.

I didn't say they symbolically went there. It didn't happen. It was a metaphor.

RESPONSE: Then isn't it also possible that Jesus' Resurrection is a metaphor too?

And isn't it strange that none of the other writers of the New Testament mention any mass resurrection at Jesus' death?

[Goose]

< Snipped> all the Bible verses because, let's see if I get this right, "I don't care if you find them impressive or credible". They are just claims made in books and that is not good enough IMO for rational people to conclude that the impossible happened. More is needed for that I would think.

Those Bible verses (and they weren’t all from the Bible btw) are evidence the earliest Christians were persecuted and risked death for their belief. Nothing impossible about that is there Clownboat? Didn’t think so. You ask for evidence, I provide it, you hand wave it aside. Nicely done.

My bubble is just fine Goose. Why? Well because the majority of history is not made up of impossible claims like so and so rose from the dead after 3 days and ascended up to heaven. That type of 'history' is on a different level when compared to the mundane.

The majority of ancient sources we get our history from contain some reference to the supernatural Clownboat. Yes, even the ones for the assassination attribute some supernatural element to the event. How’s your bubble now?

This addresses consistency Goose.

Which is not addressing the evidence for the resurrection Clownboat.

If claims made in a book is all that is really needed in order to believe seemingly nonsensical claims, then you should be a Mormon.

If only that was all there was to it.

You are not, so therefore I question if claims made in a book really are the mechanism you use to believe that this particular dead body came back to life and ascended up to a heaven.

Your questioning is noted.

What you call your evidence is just that, claims made in a book,...

Claims made by people who were willing to be persecuted and risk death for them.

...but what's worse is that for much of it we don't even know who wrote the claims nor when.

I have as a good an idea who wrote the NT as I do who wrote the bios of Caesar. And you can’t argue against that premise because you won’t address the evidence.

Readers, notice how there are no claims of anyone actually witnessing this risen Christ.

Yeah you said that already.

Claims that people actually did see the risen Christ were a forgery added many years later.

Yeah you already said that too.

I think the record player might be stuck.

The claim that people will eventually see him existed. The claim that people actually did see him is a forgery added many years later.

It’s a forgery in Mark’s Gospel yes. And we’ve been over this. The claim that people saw the risen Jesus existed well before Mark’s Gospel found in Paul’s letters. And this is all granting Markan priority and a two source hypothesis. If we assume a two Gospel hypothesis you no longer have an argument.

What you are doing here is splitting hairs over Mark anyway. Mark’s Gospel clearly states Jesus was risen and that he will be seen. All it lacks is the details of those appearances which isn’t surprising since Mark lacks other details.

If you have a cogent argument to make against Mark’s Gospel now is the time to do it. Pointing to well known textural issues with the ending of Mark doesn’t prove anything.

Btw, there was plenty more evidence I gave than just Mark.

There is a big difference in these claims and you keep glossing over the fact that one is a forgery and you seem immune to the idea that the entire story of the resurrection and ascension could possible be a made up claim like Mohammed and Joseph Smith claims.

Of course it’s possible they are all made up. It’s also possible the assassination was made up. It's also possible it's all true. Simply stating it’s possible or impossible doesn’t make it so.

Good to hear! Please explain the logic involved in believing that decomposing bodies can come back to life.

If the best explanation that most powerfully explains the widest set of data is that Jesus rose from the dead then we have good reason to accept it.

I must wonder why he is unable to articulate a reason why anyone should find resurrection claims believable.

Once again whether anyone finds them believable is irrelevant. The fact is resurrections have been medically documented.

What mechanism would need to be involved for the liquefied organs to come back to life and would such a mechanism be needed in order for Caesar to be assassinated?

There are proposed mechanisms for the spontaneous return to life after death, “but so far the scientific explanations have been inadequate.� I’m not aware of any current proposed mechanism for a three-day-dead resurrection. Which is understandable since the medical community currently has no adequate explanation for how someone who has been dead for only a few minutes came back to life.

Yes Goose. At this point though, all that remains to be pointed out is that you have not offered justification beyond 'claims in a book' to refute what biology tells us about decomposing bodies and the reality that death is not reversible.

The knowledge we have about biology is vastly incomplete. Once our knowledge of biology is complete come back to me.

I have no idea why you would think that noting that an argument is not impressive would be some kind of counter argument.

Hey I don’t personally find your assertion “it’s not impressive� to be impressive. Refute that.

But to be a valid counter argument it needs to do one of several things. Either dispute the validity of the logic or dispute the evidence supporting the logic. If it doesn’t do either one of those things it’s not a counter argument. Telling me you don’t like my arguments isn’t a valid counter argument. I can't believe I'm having to spell this out.

Seems like a statement that could either be true or not true, which for me anyway, trying to offer good arguments over bad arguments is important.

Well you’ve barely offered any arguments at all aside from your subjective opinions about my arguments not being impressive to you.

You paint with to broad of a brush here.

Am I? Are you saying you know who wrote the Gallic Wars for example? Or any other ancient text?

Either way, extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence before being believed.

If I was trying to make you a believer, but I’m not. By the way can you tell me what constitutes extraordinary claims and extra ordinary evidence? Or is this just something one says when one doesn’t know what else to say.

Really, really, really wanting claims to be true is not justification IMO to accept poor evidence (claims made by people claiming that their claims are true) for things that seem impossible.

Back to arguing what seems impossible to you based upon your very limited observations and understanding of the universe. A completely fallacious form of argumentation proven fallacious by people like Lord Kelvin of the Royal Society who stated, “heavier than air flying machines are impossible.� That was just eight years before the Wright brothers proved him wrong.

Please clarify. You find it reasonable to have a body that has been decomposing for 3 days come back to life?

What I personally find reasonable is irrelevant. By the way you probably don’t realize it but you are tacitly conceding the reliability of the NT to record events by arguing for a three day time frame. Thank you.

Appeal to authority noted. In the real world, resurrections are just as real as Smurfs.

Oh look, Smurfs again. Which historians argue for Smurfs then? Name one.

I fail to see what is funny. I don't know if Caesar was assassinated. I note that it is a claim that is reasonable, unlike resurrections and ascensions.

Then you should have no problem accepting the assassination. Why the reluctance if whether or not you personally find it “reasonable� is a necessary criterion and you find it reasonable?

I also note that Caesar does not help us to decide if said resurrection and ascension claims are historical fact or not.

Good grief. I never argued it did. I’ve never argued that if one believes the assassination one must likewise believe the resurrection. Or if the assassination is a fact then the resurrection is a fact. Those would be a big fat non-sequiturs.

The assassination helps us make sure we are treating the evidence for the resurrection properly though. That we aren’t making fallacious inferences from the evidence for the resurrection. Fallacious inferences that if applied to the broad spectrum of history would lead to absurdities like Caesar's assassination was fiction.

I don't know that it happened.

Of course you don’t know whether it happened. You can’t know this. I Didn’t ask that. I asked if you believe it happened. You seem to so eager to declare your non-beliefs about the resurrection, why not about a simple historical matter like the assassination?

The assassination of Caesar is not something I have ever dedicated my life to, unlike the Bible and the god of it. I cannot put it out there Goose and I don't know what it has to do with whether or not these claims about Christ are historical fact or not. I'm not claiming that it is historical fact that Caesar was assassinated. You however are trying to argue just that about these Christ claims.

No I’m not arguing at this point the resurrection to be a historical fact in the sense of knowledge. I’ve been quite clear it’s a belief and one that I’ve justified with evidence. Unless you’d like to provide some kind of historical method for determining what constitutes a “historical fact.� Then I’d be more than happy to run the evidence for the resurrection through that method to see how it fares.

Dodge noted and we need a consistency check again. Do you find the claims about Mohammed ascending to heaven on a flying horse to be credible? How about Joseph Smiths golden plates and magical glasses? Are those claims credible?

Once again whether I find them a priori credible is irrelevant. My understanding of the evidence for Mohammed’s night journey is that it comes down to us from the Hadith which was compiled a few centuries after Mohammed if I’m not mistaken. And there is some dispute within that evidence as to whether it was a vision or not. I wouldn’t call evidence that late historically strong evidence. Certainly not as historically strong as the evidence for the resurrection. But I’m willing to admit I could be mistaken about the strength of the evidence and am open to hearing your case for Mohammed’s night journey if you want to present it. All that would happen is you'd force me to acknowledge the night journey as having strong historical evidence. For some strange reason you think this adequately refutes the evidence for the resurrection. It doesn't.

As for Joseph Smith I think there are some valid arguments against the evidence but I actually happen to believe he probably had some kind of supernatural experience. But I reject Mormonism on theological grounds not evidential. Same reason I’m not Jewish.

[Goose]

When the action of the Roman government forming a movement to seek out and condemn Caesar's murders can be proven to exist, it is reasonable to believe Caesar was murdered.

We'll aside for the moment that this is a non-sequitur. Any formal effort by the Roman's to seek out and condemn Caesar's alleged murderers may have been the result of a grand conspiracy attempting to pin the death of Caesar on political rivals.

But since your belief here hinges on the existence of "the action of the Roman government forming a movement to seek out and condemn Caesar's murders" go ahead and prove it. Cite your primary evidence. This will be helpful since it will give us your methodology for proving an historical fact. Something you conveniently left out of your OP. Once we have that, I'll see if your method is logically valid and if it is I'll run the evidence for the resurrection through your method to see if it can also be said to be a historical fact.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1415 by Claire Evans]

Number 2 is far more likely:

"In an interview, Prince Badr revealed that Saudi Arabia is making rapid progress on a moonship. “We hired the very best Arabian engineers,� he said with a broad smile. “Many of them had been working for American spacecraft builders, and they knew many American secrets.�

So because Saudi Arabia is working on spacecraft NOW, you believe Muhammed had spacecraft 1400 years ago? You refuse to consider Clownboat's 1st possibility?
Even using what you say at the start of post 1415, a flying horse could have been imagined simply by looking at birds. Someone could have looked at a bird, noticed it could fly and imagined what it would be like if there were larger birds that men could ride on. Then, somewhere along the line, they transposed wings onto horses.

Remarkably he even once hinted at the possibility of weapons on par of the nuclear ones who was working on in previous eras, particularly those of the Ramayana and Mahabharata."

Just because Famous Scientist A says he believes advanced technology was used in the past doesn't mean that advanced technology was used in the past.
You are all too willing to take Famous Scientists or governmental bodies at their word when they state belief in this or that alien but curiously enough whenever someone of the same class says otherwise, you don't believe them.

The claim of the resurrection would not have survived as a metaphor. People needed proof that Jesus rose from the dead.

Would their level of proof or evidence be the same level as a person like myself would demand? You're implying that people back then were hard-core skeptics and that the only reason any of them believed was because the claim was true.

That's a misinterpretation. Jesus was specifically specifically to the disciples, not to people in general. When they preached, Jesus promised to give them the power to succeed in their evangelism.

Throw out your holy book then. The entire thing is a set of texts from one person to another person, or group of people. You can hardly claim that some or all of it pertains to people today, if you use this answer.

In other words, you can't close the possibility that they are telling the truth.

Of the many times I have investigated, precisely NONE of them have borne fruit. Including your own religion.

Do the research yourself. Get in contact with paranormal investigators or something.

Oh, and are all such investigators legit? On the level? Do you have any recommendations?
I find it quite amusing that when someone asks for evidence, your only response is "Do the research. Talk to this vaguely defined group of people"

Okay, tell me how God would that done it?

Appear to everyone, telepathically beam his message. What does God need with a [strike]starship[/strike] book?
Look at how books have evolved in recent times. Twenty years ago, I had bookshelves holding many paper books. Nowadays, I don't have any. Instead, I have thousands of books on my computing devices. This is because with the technology available to me, it is more efficient and easier to consume or spread knowledge via my Kindle than via paper books. What would I need with paper books?

Because the gospels were already established before Paul came onto the scene as I mentioned about the early Church.

Evidence please.

There is no oral tradition that is accurate from start to finish.

That's funny. Others I've talked to on this matter assure me that the Hebrews were able to remember long tracts of oral traditions, that they had great memories.

Because they were stored that way. I don't think the followers of Jesus could do that.

Didn't you just up above tell Clownboat that Jesus told his followers that they only had to ask and it would be done? Does this exclude magically preserving papyri?

You are asking why they didn't preserve any writings if there were some and I asked you how someone would have preserved it if there was.

By using the magic powers Jesus promised that they would have, the magic powers you believe Jesus had and was apparently able to gift to others?

I didn't say they symbolically went there. It didn't happen. It was a metaphor.

How is THAT story a metaphor? I've gone through what you've written, and I can't find your methodology as to how you figured it out.

[polonius]

When the action of the Roman government forming a movement to seek out and condemn Caesar's murders can be proven to exist, it is reasonable to believe Caesar was murdered.

We'll aside for the moment that this is a non-sequitur. Any formal effort by the Roman's to seek out and condemn Caesar's alleged murderers may have been the result of a grand conspiracy attempting to pin the death of Caesar on political rivals.

But since your belief here hinges on the existence of "the action of the Roman government forming a movement to seek out and condemn Caesar's murders" go ahead and prove it. Cite your primary evidence. This will be helpful since it will give us your methodology for proving an historical fact. Something you conveniently left out of your OP. Once we have that, and if it is I'll run the evidence for the resurrection through your method to see if it can also be said to be a historical fact.

RESPONSE:

http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/argonauts ... lex-titia/

Les Titia

By this law a board of three men was given complete control over the Roman state. The lex Titia turned Rome into a de facto dictatorship, and one might argue that this date represents the end of the Roman Republic.
In 44 BC Caesar had declared himself dictator perpetuo (dictator for life). The result of this decision was his assassination by a group of senators on 15th March (the Ides), 44 BC. Two men sought to fill the position thus vacated by Caesar. One was Marc Antony, Caesar’s co-consul in 44 BC, and a loyal ally and lieutenant of the dead dictator. The other was the nineteen year-old Octavian, Caesar’s great-nephew whom he had adopted in his will

Certainly I and the readership are happy to learn that you'll " ... see if your method is logically valid" !!!!

[H.sapiens]

When the action of the Roman government forming a movement to seek out and condemn Caesar's murders can be proven to exist, it is reasonable to believe Caesar was murdered.

We'll aside for the moment that this is a non-sequitur. Any formal effort by the Roman's to seek out and condemn Caesar's alleged murderers may have been the result of a grand conspiracy attempting to pin the death of Caesar on political rivals.

But since your belief here hinges on the existence of "the action of the Roman government forming a movement to seek out and condemn Caesar's murders" go ahead and prove it. Cite your primary evidence. This will be helpful since it will give us your methodology for proving an historical fact. Something you conveniently left out of your OP. Once we have that, and if it is I'll run the evidence for the resurrection through your method to see if it can also be said to be a historical fact.

RESPONSE:

http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/argonauts ... lex-titia/

Les Titia

By this law a board of three men was given complete control over the Roman state. The lex Titia turned Rome into a de facto dictatorship, and one might argue that this date represents the end of the Roman Republic.
In 44 BC Caesar had declared himself dictator perpetuo (dictator for life). The result of this decision was his assassination by a group of senators on 15th March (the Ides), 44 BC. Two men sought to fill the position thus vacated by Caesar. One was Marc Antony, Caesar’s co-consul in 44 BC, and a loyal ally and lieutenant of the dead dictator. The other was the nineteen year-old Octavian, Caesar’s great-nephew whom he had adopted in his will

Certainly I and the readership are happy to learn that you'll " ... see if your method is logically valid" !!!!

Oh! You mean contemporaneous cross-references! Can't quite manage that for Jesus or the resurrection, eh?

[Goose]

When the action of the Roman government forming a movement to seek out and condemn Caesar's murders can be proven to exist, it is reasonable to believe Caesar was murdered.

We'll aside for the moment that this is a non-sequitur. Any formal effort by the Roman's to seek out and condemn Caesar's alleged murderers may have been the result of a grand conspiracy attempting to pin the death of Caesar on political rivals.

But since your belief here hinges on the existence of "the action of the Roman government forming a movement to seek out and condemn Caesar's murders" go ahead and prove it. Cite your primary evidence. This will be helpful since it will give us your methodology for proving an historical fact. Something you conveniently left out of your OP. Once we have that, and if it is I'll run the evidence for the resurrection through your method to see if it can also be said to be a historical fact.

RESPONSE:

http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/argonauts ... lex-titia/

Les Titia

By this law a board of three men was given complete control over the Roman state. The lex Titia turned Rome into a de facto dictatorship, and one might argue that this date represents the end of the Roman Republic.
In 44 BC Caesar had declared himself dictator perpetuo (dictator for life). The result of this decision was his assassination by a group of senators on 15th March (the Ides), 44 BC. Two men sought to fill the position thus vacated by Caesar. One was Marc Antony, Caesar’s co-consul in 44 BC, and a loyal ally and lieutenant of the dead dictator. The other was the nineteen year-old Octavian, Caesar’s great-nephew whom he had adopted in his will

Certainly I and the readership are happy to learn that you'll " ... see if your method is logically valid" !!!!

The Lex Titia was the legalization of the Second Triumvirate not "the action of the Roman government forming a movement to seek out and condemn Caesar's murders." Care to try again?

[polonius]

When the action of the Roman government forming a movement to seek out and condemn Caesar's murders can be proven to exist, it is reasonable to believe Caesar was murdered.

We'll aside for the moment that this is a non-sequitur. Any formal effort by the Roman's to seek out and condemn Caesar's alleged murderers may have been the result of a grand conspiracy attempting to pin the death of Caesar on political rivals.

But since your belief here hinges on the existence of "the action of the Roman government forming a movement to seek out and condemn Caesar's murders" go ahead and prove it. Cite your primary evidence. This will be helpful since it will give us your methodology for proving an historical fact. Something you conveniently left out of your OP. Once we have that, and if it is I'll run the evidence for the resurrection through your method to see if it can also be said to be a historical fact.

RESPONSE:

http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/argonauts ... lex-titia/

Les Titia

By this law a board of three men was given complete control over the Roman state. The lex Titia turned Rome into a de facto dictatorship, and one might argue that this date represents the end of the Roman Republic.
In 44 BC Caesar had declared himself dictator perpetuo (dictator for life). The result of this decision was his assassination by a group of senators on 15th March (the Ides), 44 BC. Two men sought to fill the position thus vacated by Caesar. One was Marc Antony, Caesar’s co-consul in 44 BC, and a loyal ally and lieutenant of the dead dictator. The other was the nineteen year-old Octavian, Caesar’s great-nephew whom he had adopted in his will

Certainly I and the readership are happy to learn that you'll " ... see if your method is logically valid" !!!!

The Lex Titia was the legalization of the Second Triumvirate not "the action of the Roman government forming a movement to seek out and condemn Caesar's murders." Care to try again?

RESPONSE: Sorry. Why was it necessary to form a second government?

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 1423 by polonius.advice]

The usual: y'all got and I want.