No one saw the ressurection

[bjs]

I see no reason to give credence to the resurrection. No one saw it actually happen despite the obvious importance of that in lending credibility to the idea of Jesus being special. In none of the stories does anyone see a resurrected Jesus who is not already a follower of Jesus despite the obvious importance of unbiased witnesses to lend credibility to the alleged event.

I have seen this argument a few times, but I have never been able to make sense of it.

Imagine that you spent years living and traveling with a person. Then you saw that person killed. Absolutely, unquestionably put to death. Then you saw that person alive again a week later and you, as well as all the other people who knew that person well, were convinced that it really is the same person now alive. Would it matter if anyone saw that person come back to life? Wouldn’t that fact that the person was dead and is now alive be sufficient reason to believe that the person came back to life?

To make a more mundane analogy, imagine a place in your yard that is only grass. Now imagine that you walk out to that place tomorrow and find that there is a five foot tall sapling there. You did not see the sapling planted, but it is there now. Does the fact that you did not see the sapling being planted matter in any meaningful way? Would you insist that the sapling is not there because you did not see it being planted?

If someone were writing a fictional story about Jesus then we would expect someone to witness the resurrection in that story. If someone were writing a fictional story that they wanted to pass off as true it would make sense to have Jesus appear to various “unbiased� witnesses to lend credibility to the alleged event.

But if someone where recording actual events then the reason they do record any witnesses to the resurrection is because no one was there to witness it. If anything, this tends to lend a small amount of credence to the story. The gospel accounts defy what expect from fiction and instead seem closer to what we experience in real life.

For debate: Does the fact that the Gospels do not record any witnesses to the resurrection make the story less credible?

[The Nice Centurion]

For debate: Does the fact that the Gospels do not record any witnesses to the resurrection make the story less credible?

No. I'm with you on this one. If you trust the gospels it's pretty solid.

Saw him alive.

Saw him dead.

Saw him alive again.

That = came back to life.

No one saw the resurrection is a lame nitpick. There are far better things to pick at than that, such as ancient people not having the instrumentation to tell for sure whether someone is dead or not.

Yes - IF you believe the story and ignore or try to excuse all the dubious bits. Bear in mind that, for the beleiver, it is enough to dismiss all doubts and questions, but for someone not already bought in, the excuses and evasions aren't good enought to make this extra0ordinary claim beleivable.

It just comes down to Bible critics understanding the case (amazingly, hardly any seem to), people getting to hear it, and people being open minded enough to opt for the explanation that best fits the facts of what the story says - it is all made up.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #12]Jesus resurrected in a closed dark cave, which would have made it difficult for a class of jewish schoolkids to stumble into that by chance. .

Yes...the point being (as I understand it) that whatever the resurrection was (aside I think the accounts are made up) it was not a miracle done by God (unless he was totally incompetent...which would explain a few things...) or he would have ensured that everyone who mattered saw it, so there was no more doubt about than about the battle or Actium, or the Neronian fore in Rome.

Everyone who mattered did see it. Technically if only God saw Jesus then still everyone who mattered did see it.

God seeing anything is an unsupported and invalid claim and counts for nothing as evidence for evaluation. It is a matter of the supposed eyewitness testimony and (I hate to labour the point but I shall valiantly do so) so it comes down to whether the tall tale and extraordinary claim of the resurrection is credible. Especially given the extra Logical Entity of God having masterminded the whole thing. It is a valid point to make that it was very poorly witnessed and a god that organised it could have done it better. After all, IF one were to credit the resurrection -account(s) it would work better as a fake resurrection, just as the crucifixion account works better as a Fake crucifixion. But in fact (fact) the accounts would not (despite claims to the contrary) stand up in a court of Law, unless the jury was stuffed with primed and bribed jurors, which is what the Biblical apologists are banking on - that the peanut gallery will be as dismissive.

I wonder. I think people are quite willing to learn that they have been lied to and will get quite annoyed about it. So to sum up, your case has to overcome three hyrdles - the credibility hurdle (is it reliable as witness record?), the actuality - hurdle (if true, does it fit the facts better as a fake than a miracle?) and the 'God saw it' claim which is really a total irrelevance.

As far as I know Theology agrees that God can choose to limit his omnipotence when and where He wants. (Example: Theology thinks God choose not to know if Adam Would give in to sin or not.)

So He could also have choosen to look the other way when Jesus resurrected. In this case really noch on watched. Not even Christ. He had no mirror.

[TRANSPONDER]

That's the excuse I've seen. That God willingly acts as though he doesn't know what's going on. And so does Jesus. And this is an excuse as there is no reason for God to do this, other than explain problems of myths and tall tales. God not knowing where Adam was, God lying to Moses in his vision of the earth and heavens being created. And Jesus talking about Adam and Noah when he should have known none of that was true. Not to mention acting like He didn't know he was going to help the Syrio - phoenecian woman anyway, nor that he couldn't be let off crucifixion, so there was no point asking, except that he could as God could just forgive everyone.

None ot ot makes any sense, so excuses like 'God limits himself, pretends He isn't there, and signs over the world to satan. The believers use this sort of stuff as excuses to keep believing the unbelievable, but there is no reason why anyone else should.

The Morality or 'We need it - true or not' is a lie, and I think the de Botton initiative (we don't hear too much about that these days (1) ir the Vaughan Williams love of church music and tradition without actually believing it means that we don't need to believe it for good or bad reasons.

And I'll leave alone the unhealthy political aspect of Religion - and not just in America. But get back to why God didn't do the better job with the resurrection. I'm sure now - because there was no resurrection and the writers had to gradually make one up. If there had been a grand resurrection for at least the disciples and followers, never mind marching into Jerusalem "I'm back, suckers!" rather than sneaking off secretly to Galilee - except other stories say he didn't, but appeared in Jerusalem - I'd be stuck with an agree common story in ! Corinthians as well as the gospels. In fact we get supposed witnesses or reporters of witnesses telling totally different stories.

I needn't revisit Strobel's resurrection claims. Aside that none of them are original to him, they are all circular and self refuting, other than the empty tomb, and that at least can be seriously queried as an invented claim, because it was needed.

It was to use religion as a social/motivational and therapeutic tool, without believing in the Dogma, which is as tricky as Buddhist working tirelessly for enlightenment without actually wanting it as that is a Desire, or the snooker player straining every nerve to win, without caring too much whether they win or not.

[boatsnguitars]

I see no reason to give credence to the resurrection. No one saw it actually happen despite the obvious importance of that in lending credibility to the idea of Jesus being special. In none of the stories does anyone see a resurrected Jesus who is not already a follower of Jesus despite the obvious importance of unbiased witnesses to lend credibility to the alleged event.

I have seen this argument a few times, but I have never been able to make sense of it.

Imagine that you spent years living and traveling with a person. Then you saw that person killed. Absolutely, unquestionably put to death. Then you saw that person alive again a week later and you, as well as all the other people who knew that person well, were convinced that it really is the same person now alive. Would it matter if anyone saw that person come back to life? Wouldn’t that fact that the person was dead and is now alive be sufficient reason to believe that the person came back to life?

To make a more mundane analogy, imagine a place in your yard that is only grass. Now imagine that you walk out to that place tomorrow and find that there is a five foot tall sapling there. You did not see the sapling planted, but it is there now. Does the fact that you did not see the sapling being planted matter in any meaningful way? Would you insist that the sapling is not there because you did not see it being planted?

If someone were writing a fictional story about Jesus then we would expect someone to witness the resurrection in that story. If someone were writing a fictional story that they wanted to pass off as true it would make sense to have Jesus appear to various “unbiased� witnesses to lend credibility to the alleged event.

But if someone where recording actual events then the reason they do record any witnesses to the resurrection is because no one was there to witness it. If anything, this tends to lend a small amount of credence to the story. The gospel accounts defy what expect from fiction and instead seem closer to what we experience in real life.

For debate: Does the fact that the Gospels do not record any witnesses to the resurrection make the story less credible?

Imagine if aliens landed in your backyard, played frisbee with you the whole weekend, then created living unicorns from strands of hair. Then, imagine they took you to their home planet, via wormhole, and they killed a man, left him for 3 days, then resurrected him. Imagine they bought you a puppy and gave you a Billion dollars.

Imagine...

[TRANSPONDER]

Exactly. What our pal is overlooking is 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. Planting a sapling (1) is not the same as an extraordinary event like encountering Et aliens or a resurrection. If we reserve judgement (at least) on other supernatural claims, why should we not reserve judgement on those made for the resurrection, even if they were reliable report?

But of course they are not. If someone gives a flying saucer story, we may wonder "Why would be lie? He sounds like he really saw something". But if someone whi supposedly saw the same thing tells a contradictory story, why should anyone credit it, other than UFO cultists determined to believe it no matter what?

And that's what we get with the resurrections. Originally a Nothing story - just the empty tomb and not (John) even an angel explaining everything. After the Synoptic had an angel doing a five minute exposition before they have to roll the credits, contradictory stories were added and there is no valid reason to credit any of them. Of course The believers have covered this up nicely, cherry picking the different stories to make up one that people will swallow - so long as the terminal contradictions (2) are kept from them. I have a mission - to make sure the people are not lied to any longer.

I have Faith - even now that people do not like to be lied to, and want to be sure what they believe is based on reasonable evidence, not claims that never get backed up by evidence.

(1) in my London days, I found a nearby park had saplings planted. I didn't see them planted, but why should I assume a miracle?

(2) and this was the Belief -serving methodology of UFO cultists, too. The case of the African schoolkids. Whatever was seen, the kids were ALL asked to draw what they saw. The results were all different and some clearly inspired by African masks. The UFO apologists selected the ONE drawing by a girl that looked ET like and then claimed the other drawings agreed with it. I have a hard job not seeing the same Faithbased deception we get with religious apologetics.

[The Nice Centurion]

2 Threads for the same topics in this subforum.

This one here where we are (by a Christian), and this one
viewtopic.php?t=27092
by an antichrist (myself years ago from my old account).

Now not that I am fond of getting personal, but as an interesting fact I want to mark that the resurrection seems to be not important enough for my believing thread-competitor to get the word grammatically right. HE/She writes "ressurection"!

[bjs1]

I see no reason to give credence to the resurrection. No one saw it actually happen despite the obvious importance of that in lending credibility to the idea of Jesus being special. In none of the stories does anyone see a resurrected Jesus who is not already a follower of Jesus despite the obvious importance of unbiased witnesses to lend credibility to the alleged event.

I have seen this argument a few times, but I have never been able to make sense of it.

Imagine that you spent years living and traveling with a person. Then you saw that person killed. Absolutely, unquestionably put to death. Then you saw that person alive again a week later and you, as well as all the other people who knew that person well, were convinced that it really is the same person now alive. Would it matter if anyone saw that person come back to life? Wouldn’t that fact that the person was dead and is now alive be sufficient reason to believe that the person came back to life?

To make a more mundane analogy, imagine a place in your yard that is only grass. Now imagine that you walk out to that place tomorrow and find that there is a five foot tall sapling there. You did not see the sapling planted, but it is there now. Does the fact that you did not see the sapling being planted matter in any meaningful way? Would you insist that the sapling is not there because you did not see it being planted?

If someone were writing a fictional story about Jesus then we would expect someone to witness the resurrection in that story. If someone were writing a fictional story that they wanted to pass off as true it would make sense to have Jesus appear to various “unbiased� witnesses to lend credibility to the alleged event.

But if someone where recording actual events then the reason they do record any witnesses to the resurrection is because no one was there to witness it. If anything, this tends to lend a small amount of credence to the story. The gospel accounts defy what expect from fiction and instead seem closer to what we experience in real life.

For debate: Does the fact that the Gospels do not record any witnesses to the resurrection make the story less credible?

Imagine if aliens landed in your backyard, played frisbee with you the whole weekend, then created living unicorns from strands of hair. Then, imagine they took you to their home planet, via wormhole, and they killed a man, left him for 3 days, then resurrected him. Imagine they bought you a puppy and gave you a Billion dollars.

Imagine...

Yes, we can imagine anything. What is your point? It appears that you have misunderstood what an analogy is. If that is not the case, please explain what you mean.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #56]

My point is that one can frame anything as a narrative and pose it as some logic that leads to a conclusion.
Theists are fond of saying, Imagine if you saw "I exist, signed, God" written in the stars?
Would you believe then?! Huh? Would you!!!!???"

As if its persuasive.

Sure, we say. If I saw that, I'd wonder if Elon Musk bought some technology or something

But...

And this is important to remember for all these hypothetical scenarios: they haven't happened.

There is no writing in the sky. There was no man raised from the dead. There were no golden plates. There was no elephant headed God.

Using hypothetical scenarios as facts to support a conclusion is wrong. Obviously wrong. Unhelpful. Flawed. Irrational.
That was my point.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #56]

My point is that one can frame anything as a narrative and pose it as some logic that leads to a conclusion.
Theists are fond of saying, Imagine if you saw "I exist, signed, God" written in the stars?
Would you believe then?! Huh? Would you!!!!???"

As if its persuasive.

Sure, we say. If I saw that, I'd wonder if Elon Musk bought some technology or something

But...

And this is important to remember for all these hypothetical scenarios: they haven't happened.

There is no writing in the sky. There was no man raised from the dead. There were no golden plates. There was no elephant headed God.

Using hypothetical scenarios as facts to support a conclusion is wrong. Obviously wrong. Unhelpful. Flawed. Irrational.
That was my point.

[bjs1]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #56]

My point is that one can frame anything as a narrative and pose it as some logic that leads to a conclusion.
Theists are fond of saying, Imagine if you saw "I exist, signed, God" written in the stars?
Would you believe then?! Huh? Would you!!!!???"

As if its persuasive.

Sure, we say. If I saw that, I'd wonder if Elon Musk bought some technology or something

But...

And this is important to remember for all these hypothetical scenarios: they haven't happened.

There is no writing in the sky. There was no man raised from the dead. There were no golden plates. There was no elephant headed God.

Using hypothetical scenarios as facts to support a conclusion is wrong. Obviously wrong. Unhelpful. Flawed. Irrational.
That was my point.

Great. Now, do you understand how analogies work in writing and why your point has nothing to do with what is being discussed?

[boatsnguitars]

I see no reason to give credence to the resurrection. No one saw it actually happen despite the obvious importance of that in lending credibility to the idea of Jesus being special. In none of the stories does anyone see a resurrected Jesus who is not already a follower of Jesus despite the obvious importance of unbiased witnesses to lend credibility to the alleged event.

I have seen this argument a few times, but I have never been able to make sense of it.

Imagine that you spent years living and traveling with a person. Then you saw that person killed. Absolutely, unquestionably put to death. Then you saw that person alive again a week later and you, as well as all the other people who knew that person well, were convinced that it really is the same person now alive. Would it matter if anyone saw that person come back to life? Wouldn’t that fact that the person was dead and is now alive be sufficient reason to believe that the person came back to life?

Imagine! Because that's all you can do, since it didn't happen.

To make a more mundane analogy, imagine a place in your yard that is only grass. Now imagine that you walk out to that place tomorrow and find that there is a five foot tall sapling there. You did not see the sapling planted, but it is there now. Does the fact that you did not see the sapling being planted matter in any meaningful way? Would you insist that the sapling is not there because you did not see it being planted?

Imagine! Because that's all you can ever do, as it has never happened.

If someone were writing a fictional story about Jesus then we would expect someone to witness the resurrection in that story. If someone were writing a fictional story that they wanted to pass off as true it would make sense to have Jesus appear to various “unbiased� witnesses to lend credibility to the alleged event.

But if someone where recording actual events then the reason they do record any witnesses to the resurrection is because no one was there to witness it. If anything, this tends to lend a small amount of credence to the story. The gospel accounts defy what expect from fiction and instead seem closer to what we experience in real life.

They are exactly what we expect from fiction: fanciful tales that we have to imagine.

For debate: Does the fact that the Gospels do not record any witnesses to the resurrection make the story less credible?

No, they are already incredible. Walking on water, Messiahs, Gods, demons, miracle cures of leprosy and death, fish, loaves of bread, etc. Not to mention all of John's insane ramblings.


Where in the world did you ever get the idea that a man was resurrected? Let me guess, from the Church. Guess what, if you go to another building they'll tell you a guy ascended to Heaven on a horse. Go to another building and they'll tell you a guy has an elephant head. Go to another and you get to own a planet after you die. Go to another and you can rule with Xenu. Go to another and you can find total bliss within yourself.

Imagine!