The Resurrection of Jesus is historically probable

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by bibledefender
 


So are saying you think dead people can get up and walk around?

Or do you think it more likely (if the Jesus story has some basis of truth) that he simply wasn't dead in the first place? A clarification of positions would be helpful here (please).




posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by bibledefender
 


So are saying you think dead people can get up and walk around?

Or do you think it more likely (if the Jesus story has some basis of truth) that he simply wasn't dead in the first place? A clarification of positions would be helpful here (please).


No Christian believes that dead people rise from the dead - naturalistically. In the usual course of events, dead people stay dead. The resurrection is not a natural even, it is a supernatural one.

Science says nothing concerning the existence of the supernatural or that miracles cannot happen. Therefore, to responsibly investigate the resurrection, which is a historical claim, you have to base the probability on historical grounds, using historical guidelines.

What you refer to is the swoon theory. Which was real popular up until about the 19th century and was put to rest by David Strauss who was a skeptic himself. Along with other facts pointing to the reality that Jesus was really dead, this hypothesis never again gained support of modern scholars.
edit on 16-8-2012 by bibledefender because: update



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by bibledefender
 


Hmm, in that case then i highly disagree with the resurrection. Just not probable or possible. However, each to their own i suppose.....

I don't buy into the whole son of god thing either though to be honest. If there is proper historical basis in the story, for me it has been to be in the context of man with ideas that gained popularity, resulting in a movement which morphs into a religion. To me that would be far more realistic.

I get the impression though that you have a totally different opinion!



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by bibledefender
 


Hmm, in that case then i highly disagree with the resurrection. Just not probable or possible. However, each to their own i suppose.....

I don't buy into the whole son of god thing either though to be honest. If there is proper historical basis in the story, for me it has been to be in the context of man with ideas that gained popularity, resulting in a movement which morphs into a religion. To me that would be far more realistic.

I get the impression though that you have a totally different opinion!


Why not possible? Nor probable? Sounds like an a-priori conclusion rather based on historiographical evidence.

LOL yup I do have a totally different opinion!!
edit on 16-8-2012 by bibledefender because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by bibledefender
 


Because dead people don't get up and walk around. Black and white for me but then i have absolutely no belief in the supernatural. That is not to say that weird things do not happen (people seeing ghosts, etc) but for me this is more electrical / magnetic resonance on the brain than anything God like or spiritual.

Being civil though as i respect people's religious beliefs (who am i say you are wrong?) - and we appear to have wildly different ones! Of course, if i am wrong then i probably have a hot afterlife waiting for me!



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by bibledefender
 


Because dead people don't get up and walk around. Black and white for me but then i have absolutely no belief in the supernatural. That is not to say that weird things do not happen (people seeing ghosts, etc) but for me this is more electrical / magnetic resonance on the brain than anything God like or spiritual.

Being civil though as i respect people's religious beliefs (who am i say you are wrong?) - and we appear to have wildly different ones! Of course, if i am wrong then i probably have a hot afterlife waiting for me!


Again, no Christian would disagree with you - naturalistically. What do you base your conclusion that there is no supernatural?

LOL I used to be atheist myself.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by bibledefender
 


Basically because we operate on electrical pulse through our bodies, as well as being walking chemical factories. If things upset the balance (such as strong ground based magnetic charge in an area) it disrupts how our processes properly function, ie we can see things (that aren't there in reality).

I firmly believe this to be the case. However, i also accept that i may be wrong and there could be something behind it all - i just don't believe it. We are the result of random chance and evolution (to me), which kind of makes the reality of our world that bit more surreal - given that we are random chance life, how have we got to the point of working and paying taxes?
Seems wrong somehow.........

I like religion for providing mankind with the tools to live a better, happier life (helping each other). That is invaluable in my opinion. I just don't buy into the mumbo jumbo associated with religion (sorry if that word is provocative, no offence intended).



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by bibledefender
 


Basically because we operate on electrical pulse through our bodies, as well as being walking chemical factories. If things upset the balance (such as strong ground based magnetic charge in an area) it disrupts how our processes properly function, ie we can see things (that aren't there in reality).

I firmly believe this to be the case. However, i also accept that i may be wrong and there could be something behind it all - i just don't believe it. We are the result of random chance and evolution (to me), which kind of makes the reality of our world that bit more surreal - given that we are random chance life, how have we got to the point of working and paying taxes?
Seems wrong somehow.........

I like religion for providing mankind with the tools to live a better, happier life (helping each other). That is invaluable in my opinion. I just don't buy into the mumbo jumbo associated with religion (sorry if that word is provocative, no offence intended).


None taken!


At least you are honest..

Just because we operate on electircal impulses, that in no way implies that is all that there is.


We are the result of random chance and evolution (to me), which kind of makes the reality of our world that bit more surreal - given that we are random chance life, how have we got to the point of working and paying taxes?
Seems wrong somehow.........


Maybe, just maybe it is because we are not the product of chance/evolution.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Lots of stuff about the resurrection account in the Gospel of Nicodemus/Acts of Pilate:


Joseph says: And why do you wonder that Jesus has risen? But it is wonderful that He has not risen alone, but that He has also raised many others of the dead who have appeared in Jerusalem to many.

O Lord Jesus Christ, the resurrection and the life of the world, grant us grace that we may give an account of Your resurrection, and Your miracles which You did in Hades. We then were in Hades, with all who had fallen asleep since the beginning of the world. And at the hour of midnight there rose a light as if of the sun, and shone into these dark regions; and we were all lighted up, and saw each other. And straightway our father Abraham was united with the patriarchs and the prophets, and at the same time they were filled with joy, and said to each other: This light is from a great source of light. The prophet Hesaias, who was there present, said: This light is from the Father, and from the Son, and from the Holy Spirit; about whom I prophesied when yet alive, saying, The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, the people that sat in darkness, have seen a great light. Isaiah 9:1-2

Then there came into the midst another, an ascetic from the desert; and the patriarchs said to him: Who are you? And he said: I am John, the last of the prophets, who made the paths of the Son of God straight,

All these things we saw and heard; we, the two brothers, who also have been sent by Michael the archangel, and have been ordered to proclaim the resurrection of the Lord, but first to go away to the Jordan and to be baptized. Thither also we have gone, and have been baptized with the rest of the dead who have risen. Thereafter also we came to Jerusalem, and celebrated the passover of the resurrection

www.newadvent.org...



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by bibledefender

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by bibledefender
 


Basically because we operate on electrical pulse through our bodies, as well as being walking chemical factories. If things upset the balance (such as strong ground based magnetic charge in an area) it disrupts how our processes properly function, ie we can see things (that aren't there in reality).

I firmly believe this to be the case. However, i also accept that i may be wrong and there could be something behind it all - i just don't believe it. We are the result of random chance and evolution (to me), which kind of makes the reality of our world that bit more surreal - given that we are random chance life, how have we got to the point of working and paying taxes?
Seems wrong somehow.........

I like religion for providing mankind with the tools to live a better, happier life (helping each other). That is invaluable in my opinion. I just don't buy into the mumbo jumbo associated with religion (sorry if that word is provocative, no offence intended).


None taken!


At least you are honest..

Just because we operate on electircal impulses, that in no way implies that is all that there is.


We are the result of random chance and evolution (to me), which kind of makes the reality of our world that bit more surreal - given that we are random chance life, how have we got to the point of working and paying taxes?
Seems wrong somehow.........


Maybe, just maybe it is because we are not the product of chance/evolution.




So God is like an intergalactic taxman? No wonder i'm not a fan!


Seriously though, this is an interesting topic but until i have my own supernatural moment i will never believe in the literal bible. It may be a fault of mine but there it is.

I honestly think aspects of the bible are rooted in history. For example the exodus is accepted as historical fact. There are now even links being excavated to the story of Samson. But i don't for a second believe in the feeding of the 5'000 (as it is told) or walking on water on any of that side of the bible. I would need proof but i honestly don't see how that side could ever be proved. That may be a serious character flaw i have or it may be a seriously useful aspect of my character - who is to say?



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian

Originally posted by bibledefender

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by bibledefender
 


Basically because we operate on electrical pulse through our bodies, as well as being walking chemical factories. If things upset the balance (such as strong ground based magnetic charge in an area) it disrupts how our processes properly function, ie we can see things (that aren't there in reality).

I firmly believe this to be the case. However, i also accept that i may be wrong and there could be something behind it all - i just don't believe it. We are the result of random chance and evolution (to me), which kind of makes the reality of our world that bit more surreal - given that we are random chance life, how have we got to the point of working and paying taxes?
Seems wrong somehow.........

I like religion for providing mankind with the tools to live a better, happier life (helping each other). That is invaluable in my opinion. I just don't buy into the mumbo jumbo associated with religion (sorry if that word is provocative, no offence intended).


None taken!


At least you are honest..

Just because we operate on electircal impulses, that in no way implies that is all that there is.


We are the result of random chance and evolution (to me), which kind of makes the reality of our world that bit more surreal - given that we are random chance life, how have we got to the point of working and paying taxes?
Seems wrong somehow.........


Maybe, just maybe it is because we are not the product of chance/evolution.




So God is like an intergalactic taxman? No wonder i'm not a fan!


Seriously though, this is an interesting topic but until i have my own supernatural moment i will never believe in the literal bible. It may be a fault of mine but there it is.

I honestly think aspects of the bible are rooted in history. For example the exodus is accepted as historical fact. There are now even links being excavated to the story of Samson. But i don't for a second believe in the feeding of the 5'000 (as it is told) or walking on water on any of that side of the bible. I would need proof but i honestly don't see how that side could ever be proved. That may be a serious character flaw i have or it may be a seriously useful aspect of my character - who is to say?


What sort of proof are you looking for and is it reasonable? For example there were no video recorders back then, so to demand such is quite unreasonable and shows a-priori bias. Why not examine the evidence at hand? ie. the written documents that we have both for and against and then weigh that evidence and then make a decision?



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   
mkmasn

Thank you for the kind words.

bibledefender


Would love to have an actual debate (moderated one at that) with you. But time is limited.


I understand. So many heathens, so little time
. My post really was just a comment on the issues that came up during your exchange with mkmsn.


Actually it is not Craig's argument, it is Mike Licona and Gary Habermas'. I just think it is a great argument and use it.


It's not my intention to referee a priority dispute among the God Squad. I said it was WLC's "set piece" because I saw him use his version of it repeatedly, for example, here on his website:

www.reasonablefaith.org...

www.reasonablefaith.org...

www.reasonablefaith.org...

I happily defer to you if you know that he got the approach from somebody else. In the case before us, I did acknowledge that you had adapted it somewhat, and we do seem to be in agreement that it is not entirely original with you, which is fine.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by eight bits
mkmasn

Thank you for the kind words.

bibledefender


Would love to have an actual debate (moderated one at that) with you. But time is limited.


I understand. So many heathens, so little time
. My post really was just a comment on the issues that came up during your exchange with mkmsn.


Actually it is not Craig's argument, it is Mike Licona and Gary Habermas'. I just think it is a great argument and use it.


It's not my intention to referee a priority dispute among the God Squad. I said it was WLC's "set piece" because I saw him use his version of it repeatedly, for example, here on his website:

www.reasonablefaith.org...

www.reasonablefaith.org...

www.reasonablefaith.org...

I happily defer to you if you know that he got the approach from somebody else. In the case before us, I did acknowledge that you had adapted it somewhat, and we do seem to be in agreement that it is not entirely original with you, which is fine.


Wonderful! I read of another set of facts that he alluded to in his books. Thanks for the information. Gary Habermas is the first I have read that used what I had posted. So either way all is good. I understand. At least your responses were more thoughtful than what my opponent offered.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by bibledefender
 


Proof for me would be witnessing something "supernatural" and having no doubts there wasn't a rational explanation for it. For example, someone walking on water - i would have to be certain it wasn't trickery (such as Dynamo did). That would then open me up to the possibility of the supernatural actually being based in reality.

Basically, i want to see something and then make sure science can't explain it in alternative ways. Does that make sense? I mean, to me, if someone thousands of years ago saw something shooting across the sky they would be thinking on the lines of the gods moving about (or whatever). Nowadays, we would be thinking comet. I realise this isn't the best example to illustrate my point but hopefully you get where i'm coming from! Basically, my point is that if the bible is based in fact, it has entirely become mumbo jumbified (new word - go with it!
) as the years have gone on.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by bibledefender
 


Proof for me would be witnessing something "supernatural" and having no doubts there wasn't a rational explanation for it. For example, someone walking on water - i would have to be certain it wasn't trickery (such as Dynamo did). That would then open me up to the possibility of the supernatural actually being based in reality.

Basically, i want to see something and then make sure science can't explain it in alternative ways. Does that make sense? I mean, to me, if someone thousands of years ago saw something shooting across the sky they would be thinking on the lines of the gods moving about (or whatever). Nowadays, we would be thinking comet. I realise this isn't the best example to illustrate my point but hopefully you get where i'm coming from! Basically, my point is that if the bible is based in fact, it has entirely become mumbo jumbified (new word - go with it!
) as the years have gone on.


Well then what about the testimony of the witnesses to the resurrection? Paul was an enemy of Christians. He claimed to have seen Jesus after his death. THe same could be said of the rest of his disciples. They believed that the resurrection would happen at the end of history. They didn't believe the women's report of seeing Jesus until they themselves saw him.

As far as embellishment is concerned, claims like that must be backed up with evidence.

So again, it seems that you are making a-priori judgements without first weighing the evidence fairly.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by bibledefender
 


Ok, backing up the embellishment theory. Look at historical texts. As the years go on, they become embellished to include other information. Think Chinese whispers but on a historical tale. Many historical records from the Roman period were embellished by the Church during the Medieval period to make them more consistent with Christian doctrine. That isn't a criticism either, simply a recognition of historical fact (simply the way the world was at the time), which has subsequently been backed up by archeological discoveries.

A simple example - look to the Crusades. The Muslims (pretty much the most enlightened people on the planet in this time period) were given short thrift in the West. Subsequently, however, we know they were far ahead of the game in terms of astronomy, medicine, mathematics, etc. There are examples everywhere you look in history.

Therefore i really do not see it as credible to think the same hasn't happened with the Bible (or the Koran, etc). In actual fact, i take the view it is wrong not to think that it would be embellished (given plentiful evidence elsewhere). However, as i said earlier, i think we simply disagree on this topic.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
bibledefender


Well then what about the testimony of the witnesses to the resurrection?


What witnesses? There are the unknown fellow or fellows at the tomb Sunday morning, and maybe the guards from Matthew, who didn't testify to anybody except the temple priests, who paid them off, according to that gospel.

Paul's is the only first-hand report of a sighting of Jesus after the crucifixion that we confidently have. That's not quite the same as being a witness to the Resurrection, but let's put that aside.

Although Paul says that Jesus appeared to him, Luke says (in Acts 9 and 24) that the appearance was a light in the sky and a voice. Paul, 1 Coritnhians 15:8, alludes to 500 people at once, before his own experience and after all other individual appearances he mentions. Such an event is missing from the rest of the New Testament, unless Paul meant the Pentecostal display of Acts 2. If so, then again, it is not an appearance in human form, and most Christians today seem to think that that wasn't Jesus.


Flavian

Are you sure? Think about your own example. Thousands of years ago, a comet really could have seemed supernatural. So, a guy walks on water right before your eyes. What's the most you could say about that?


Basically, i want to see something and then make sure science can't explain it in alternative ways.


Not available. The best you'll ever do is that science can't explain it yet, maybe just like comets were thousands of years ago - or maybe really inexplicable. My point is that there is no rigorous natural test for supernaturalness, because there cannot be. It all comes down to belief.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


Yeah, i kind of acknowledged that flaw earlier on.

Historically speaking, what do we know of that period in that area? Well one thing for certain is that Rome faced repeated insurrections from groups claiming to belong to a Messiah. My views tend to Jesus being the one of these whose "teachings" lasted the test of time, therefore growing in popularity. Kind of like a 2'000 year old Karl Marx! (again, probably not the best example!).

I get a bit uncomfortable on this particular forum because i do have respect for people that believe in religion. I would hate for anyone to ever question their religious beliefs because of something that i have said - as i also previously stated, who is to say who is correct in this matter? This kind of forces me to tone down what i am trying to say, meaning i often can't get my point across coherently or correctly!

Regarding me seeing someone walking on water:

If i knew it wasn't trickery then it would force me to accept that the seemingly "supernatural" is actually possible, which would then lead me to question various aspects of life and history.
edit on 16-8-2012 by Flavian because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Great replies Flav and eight bits! Unfortunately nothing new but still great replies. However, as I stated already, instead of jumping down different bunny trails I prefer one on one debates. Would love to have one with either of you.

But right now it is quitting time and my weekend is beginning! Woo hoo!!! I will be back Sunday (that starts our work week over here).

God bless and stay cool!



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
IF Jesus died on the wood/cross....

Transformation and or ressurection happening on the third day ( if true), happens to all of us in my opinion. 3 is such a beautiful number because we are soul, mind and spirit.

His spirit was seen in the eyes of many leaving this world is more probable to me.

Why would all of those people write about something in which they believed and sacrificed them self for him or the idea is the same exact reason jihad exists and the same reason why many ancients sacrificed them self, family, kids, animals and so on. This is what " cults" do.






top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join