Atheists, What's the point?

[Tnmusicman]

You must be aware that even if the resurrection actually happened, that's not evidence for divinity, right?

Dr Craig has a quote about this.

The miraculous act of God’s raising Jesus from the dead is plausibly taken to be God’s vindication of Jesus’ radical personal claims for which he was crucified as a blasphemer. In light of God’s raising Jesus, Jesus’ personal claims to divinity take on a new credibility. The resurrection is God’s imprimatur on those extraordinary claims.

 

[Tnmusicman]

Well, no religions held up to my standards. While it's silly to call you an atheist for denying all other gods, I think it's still an interesting play on words. Our logic for rejecting gods is quite similar.

It doesn't deter you that you can't really know whether Jesus was resurrected, though?

Considering all the evidence of Jesus' post death appearances (which include those that had no interest in the matter and were hostile witnesses) I am comfortable taking the stance that Jesus was resurrected. Obviously, others feel different about the evidence but for my heart to be at ease about the resurrection I have heard all I need to hear.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Dr Craig has a quote about this.

The miraculous act of God’s raising Jesus from the dead is plausibly taken to be God’s vindication of Jesus’ radical personal claims for which he was crucified as a blasphemer. In light of God’s raising Jesus, Jesus’ personal claims to divinity take on a new credibility. The resurrection is God’s imprimatur on those extraordinary claims

That's a very roundabout way of saying 'yes huh'. There's nothing here that establishes any logical connection between the resurrection and divinity. It's still a naked assertion.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Not to mention that rising from the dead was neither unique or uncommon.

Dying-and-rising god - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Tnmusicman]

Not to mention that rising from the dead was neither unique or uncommon.

Dying-and-rising god - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't consider Wiki a reliable source.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Considering all the evidence of Jesus' post death appearances (which include those that had no interest in the matter and were hostile witnesses) I am comfortable taking the stance that Jesus was resurrected. Obviously, others feel different about the evidence but for my heart to be at ease about the resurrection I have heard all I need to hear.

Just out of curiosity, what evidence are you referring to? The bible or something outside it? I noticed you also don't consider wiki to be a reliable source beside the fact, even though I haven't checked, it likely cites its sources. What part don't you believe? That older religions than Christianity had gods who rose from the dead? Or the claims of those older religions about their resurrected gods?

What would you think if I told you that not only was the resurrection of dead gods a familiar concept at the time of Jesus...but it could be almost an expected claim of any god in that time period?

 

[Tnmusicman]

That's a very roundabout way of saying 'yes huh'. There's nothing here that establishes any logical connection between the resurrection and divinity. It's still a naked assertion.

Try this one :http://www.reasonablefaith.org/proof-of-the-resurrection

 

[Tnmusicman]

You must be aware that even if the resurrection actually happened, that's not evidence for divinity, right?

I can't type that much so ill refer you to a link :Proof of the Resurrection | Reasonable Faith

 

[Tnmusicman]

Just out of curiosity, what evidence are you referring to? The bible or something outside it? I noticed you also don't consider wiki to be a reliable source beside the fact, even though I haven't checked, it likely cites its sources. What part don't you believe? That older religions than Christianity had gods who rose from the dead? Or the claims of those older religions about their resurrected gods?

What would you think if I told you that not only was the resurrection of dead gods a familiar concept at the time of Jesus...but it could be almost an expected claim of any god in that time period?

Sure, but I believe in the divinity if Christ.

 

[Davian]

I can't type that much so ill refer you to a link :Proof of the Resurrection | Reasonable Faith

Sorry to hear about your illness. I hope it is of the "get well soon" type.


Also from WLC's web pages:

"So you’re asking for non-canonical sources. I think one reason Bill didn’t want to answer is because the non-canonical sources don’t bear out his position. The non- canonical pagan sources in fact never refer to the resurrection of Jesus until centuries later. Jesus actually never appears any non-canonical pagan source until 80 years after his death. So clearly he didn’t make a big impact on the pagan world. The Jewish historian Josephus mentions Jesus but didn’t believe in his resurrection. There are non-canonical Christian sources that talk about the resurrection, but unfortunately virtually all of them that narrate the event, although they are non-canonical Gospels, narrate the event in a way that disagrees with Bill’s reconstruction. They don’t believe that Jesus was physically, bodily raised from the dead. For evidence of that simply read the account of the Second Treatise of the Great Seth or read the account the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter; just go down the line. We do have one account in which Jesus comes out of the tomb. It’s in the Gospel of Peter; it’s an apocalyptic account. Jesus comes out of the tomb as tall as the skyscraper; following him is a cross which speaks to the heavens, clearly a legendary account of very little use to historians wanting to know what happened."

Read more: Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate | Reasonable Faith.org

If there is no historical support for this event, then it is not reasonable to believe that it happened.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I can't type that much so ill refer you to a link :Proof of the Resurrection | Reasonable Faith

You missed my point. For the sake of argument, I'll grant you that Jesus existed and the resurrection actually happened.

How do you tie the resurrection to an act of God? Even if the resurrection occurred, all we know is something we previously thought to be impossible happened.

We don't know what the cause of this is. Even if Jesus claims it was God, we still don't actually have any proof he wasn't delusional, as anyone in a near-death state is.

Was he misdiagnosed as dead, and was merely very close to death and in a coma? Was there some previously undocumented biological reaction that caused his body to reanimate, or more wacky, did aliens beam down, hook up jumper cables and shock him back to life? As wacky as it sounds, there's just as much evidence for those Aliens as there is for your God.

We have no evidence whatsoever what caused the resurrection. So, even if it really happened, we still don't know for sure if he's divine.

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

Was he misdiagnosed as dead, and was merely very close to death and in a coma? Was there some previously undocumented biological reaction that caused his body to reanimate

This. Two-thousand years ago, we didn't have all the methods of telling if someone's dead. It was basically determined by feeling for a pulse. If he were unconscious and badly injured, perhaps his heart rate fell to where it couldn't be felt.

It seems fanciful, right? What are the odds that he survived all that abuse and didn't bleed out after 3 days? Higher than the odds of an all-powerful creator sending him.

 

[Elioenai26]

That's a very roundabout way of saying 'yes huh'. There's nothing here that establishes any logical connection between the resurrection and divinity. It's still a naked assertion.

The resurrection of Christ is the account of a man being raised bodily from the dead after having been dead for three days due to having been scourged and then crucified.

Assuming this happened, if this was not a divine act, then tell me, what was it?

 

[Elioenai26]

Not to mention that rising from the dead was neither unique or uncommon.

Dying-and-rising god - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Accounts of dying and rising gods may have been in every religious text of every religion that has ever existed. It may have been so common that these stories of dying and rising gods were a dime a dozen. It does not follow that because the concept of dying and rising gods may have been a common theme among religions (it was not by the way), that therefore the resurrection account of Christ is not true. This is a classic example of a non-sequitur logical fallacy.

Christ's rising from the dead either happened or it did not. It was either an actual event that took place in history or it did not. This statement is based on one of the fundamental laws of logic called the Law of Excluded Middle. Just because the idea may have been in other ancient religions has no bearing whatsover on the objective fact of Christ's resurrection.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The resurrection of Christ is the account of a man being raised bodily from the dead after having been dead for three days due to having been scourged and then crucified.

That's correct.

Assuming this happened, if this was not a divine act, then tell me, what was it?

Be careful, you're treading close to an argument from ignorance fallacy.

The answer is, we don't know. A dead man coming back to life was thought to be impossible, so if it happened, we can't say without evidence what caused it.

Simply asserting it was god would be the argument from ignorance, as you have not demonstrated god. You would be asserting it had to be because you can't think of another alternative. That is the definition of the fallacy.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The resurrection of Christ is the account of a man being raised bodily from the dead after having been dead for three days due to having been scourged and then crucified.

Assuming this happened, if this was not a divine act, then tell me, what was it?

A few possibilities have already been mentioned. Why assume that if the event did happen it must have had some supernatural cause?

 

[Elioenai26]

Just out of curiosity, what evidence are you referring to? The bible or something outside it? I noticed you also don't consider wiki to be a reliable source beside the fact, even though I haven't checked, it likely cites its sources. What part don't you believe? That older religions than Christianity had gods who rose from the dead? Or the claims of those older religions about their resurrected gods?

What would you think if I told you that not only was the resurrection of dead gods a familiar concept at the time of Jesus...but it could be almost an expected claim of any god in that time period?

I would say that your argument is based on a strawman gleaned from a non-sequitur, and therefore fallacious in at least two ways.

1. No one has argued that Christ's resurrection was evidenced by it being the only account of a dying and rising god. This is the strawman argument you have constructed. Not something any Christian apologist says.

2. Your non-sequitur gleaned from the above is that the resurrection of Christ did not happen because it was not a unique account of a dying and rising god. None of that follows or is even coherent. Even if every religion in the world had accounts of dying and rising gods in their sacred texts, it simply does not follow that therefore, Christ did not rise from the dead. Christ rising from the dead is an objective truth claim and is subject to verification and falsification just like any other truth claim. Present Jesus's body, and the claim is falsified.

Where is the body?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Accounts of dying and rising gods may have been in every religious text of every religion that has ever existed. It may have been so common that these stories of dying and rising gods were a dime a dozen. It does not follow that because the concept of dying and rising gods may have been a common theme among religions (it was not by the way), that therefore the resurrection account of Christ is not true. This is a classic example of a non-sequitur logical fallacy.

Christ's rising from the dead either happened or it did not. It was either an actual event that took place in history or it did not. This statement is based on one of the fundamental laws of logic called the Law of Excluded Middle. Just because the idea may have been in other ancient religions has no bearing whatsover on the objective fact of Christ's resurrection.

You are absolutely correct.

Just because resurrection stories appeared in many other religions before and after Jesus, does not prove Jesus was not actually resurrected.

The most we can say is that since it is a common thread among many religions, that its plausible it may also be the case for Christianity. However it certainly does not disprove the claims made by Christainity.

 

[Elioenai26]

A few possibilities have already been mentioned. Why assume that if the event did happen it must have had some supernatural cause?

A man who has been buried in a sealed, Roman guarded tomb for three days after being SCOURGED, and BEATEN, CRUCIFIED, DYING, THEN PIERCED IN HIS SIDE WITH A SPEAR WHICH RUPTURED THE BUILT UP FLUID AROUND HIS HEART is seen bodily after three days, alive and well.

And you want to ask me why must this event must have had a supernatural cause? What natural explanation would you posit for such an occurance?

Are you that blind? What is wrong with you?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

A man who has been buried in a sealed, Roman guarded tomb for three days after being SCOURGED, and BEATEN, CRUCIFIED, DYING, THEN PIERCED IN HIS SIDE WITH A SPEAR WHICH RUPTURED THE BUILT UP FLUID AROUND HIS HEART is seen bodily after three days, alive and well.

And you want to ask me why must this event must have had a supernatural cause? What natural explanation would you posit for such an occurance?

Are you that blind? What is wrong with you?

If the event happened, we don't know what caused it. You are leaping to the supernatural conclusion.